Two 400-pound gorillas walked into a bar...

LewTheShoe said:
... They were F1 and Nascar. Are you surprised at this distribution of the sponsorship wealth? I am.

Click to expand...


Not really, this is tracking total sponsorship spend in each, and NASCAR is far, far more commercialized than F1 is. F1 has a massive global fanbase second only to soccer, and for all the **** Bernie Ecclestone did he also negotiated massive TV deals in all the major markets that collectively are bigger than NASCAR (The UK F1 deal alone is 280m usd a year). F1 also has heavy manufacturer spending to rely on. F1 doesn't need to rely on sponsorship spending like NASCAR does. The cars are painted in national colors with strict limits on advertising space. Plus there are just far fewer cars to carry sponsorship in general.

Meanwhile across the pond the boys at NASCAR will sell just about anything they can to make a buck (yeah! Capitalism!). So we get cars with a different livery every week and drivers decked out in new firesuits using every available breath to tell the cameras about how awesome whatever company wrote a check this week is. We get the names of the races themselves sold to the highest bidder (who's ready for the iconic Rosanne 300 this weekend??). The pole award, the white flag, sold for sponsorship.The very names of the series itself is sold for sponsorship every 2 years.

No, the only thing I'm surprised by is the fact that despite selling it's soul, NASCAR still is behind F1.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I wonder how that 'NASCAR' figure breaks down. Is that just Cup, all three national touring series, or all NASCAR-sanctioned races?
Click to expand...
There are a lot of obvious accounting questions one could ask, and I have no answers to any of them. For example, F1 also has a couple of feeder series associated with it. So does MotoGP, which from the chart looks like the bargain of the racing universe (Qatar this weekend... I can't wait!). Also, there are several other racing series not shown that obviously are non-zero in spending. There should be a slice for "Other" but there is none.
 
Acs said:
Not really, this is tracking total sponsorship spend in each, and NASCAR is far, far more commercialized than F1 is. F1 has a massive global fanbase second only to soccer, and for all the sh!t Bernie Ecclestone did he also negotiated massive TV deals in all the major markets that collectively are bigger than NASCAR (The UK F1 deal alone is 280m usd a year). F1 also has heavy manufacturer spending to rely on. F1 doesn't need to rely on sponsorship spending like NASCAR does. The cars are painted in national colors with strict limits on advertising space. Plus there are just far fewer cars to carry sponsorship in general.

Meanwhile across the pond the boys at NASCAR will sell just about anything they can to make a buck (yeah! Capitalism!). So we get cars with a different livery every week and drivers decked out in new firesuits using every available breath to tell the cameras about how awesome whatever company wrote a check this week is. We get the names of the races themselves sold to the highest bidder (who's ready for the iconic Rosanne 300 this weekend??). The pole award, the white flag, sold for sponsorship.The very names of the series itself is sold for sponsorship every 2 years.

No, the only thing I'm surprised by is the fact that despite selling it's soul, NASCAR still is behind F1.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that F1 sponsorship dollars spent are not correctly represented in the pie chart? Or suggesting that manufacturer spending is included in that figure?
 
aunty dive said:
Puts the Lowe’s deal in perspective.

Can’t wait for Eddie Gossage to make some remarks.
Click to expand...
Lowe's at $20 million per year, which I've seen reported by Adam Smith (Motorsport Analytics), would represent 1.7% of the total Nascar sponsorship picture.

Obviously, Lowe's is much bigger than that to HMS... 11.1% of total HMS revenues of $180 million, per Forbes estimates.
 
000 Force India.jpg
aunty dive said:
Are you saying that F1 sponsorship dollars spent are not correctly represented in the pie chart? Or suggesting that manufacturer spending is included in that figure?
Click to expand...
All of the F1 teams are incorporated as separate companies from the other interests of their parent companies, with separate books. Red Bull Racing gets "sponsorship" revenue from the energy drinks parent company. I'd bet that number was picked up in this chart, just an educated guess. Scuderia Ferrari gets the same from Ferrari SpA. Mercedes F1 gets the same from parent Daimler AG. But sometimes the parent company subsidies are booked as capital contributions, or as loans. Those amounts may well be left out..:idunno:

The comment about "soul"... I'll let that go for now. Gonna look for some cars in BRG livery from the last forty years, I'll get back to ya if I find any. India's national color is HOT pink, don't ya know?
 
Last edited:
Without knowing a LOT more about how these numbers were arrived at, I won't even hazard a comment on them. I don't follow F1 all that closely, but I was under the impression that for the absolute top 2-4 drivers, their salaries ALONE were more than the cost to field a front line Cup car. Just schlepping those cars and equipment around the globe and back would seem to devour dollars at a rate NASCAR could only dream about.
 
Yeah, Lewis Hamilton and Sebastian Vettel are each getting about $40 million per year. That's more money than a lot of NASCAR Cup teams operate on.
 
Acs said:
Not really, this is tracking total sponsorship spend in each, and NASCAR is far, far more commercialized than F1 is. F1 has a massive global fanbase second only to soccer, and for all the sh!t Bernie Ecclestone did he also negotiated massive TV deals in all the major markets that collectively are bigger than NASCAR (The UK F1 deal alone is 280m usd a year). F1 also has heavy manufacturer spending to rely on. F1 doesn't need to rely on sponsorship spending like NASCAR does. The cars are painted in national colors with strict limits on advertising space. Plus there are just far fewer cars to carry sponsorship in general.

Meanwhile across the pond the boys at NASCAR will sell just about anything they can to make a buck (yeah! Capitalism!). So we get cars with a different livery every week and drivers decked out in new firesuits using every available breath to tell the cameras about how awesome whatever company wrote a check this week is. We get the names of the races themselves sold to the highest bidder (who's ready for the iconic Rosanne 300 this weekend??). The pole award, the white flag, sold for sponsorship.The very names of the series itself is sold for sponsorship every 2 years.

No, the only thing I'm surprised by is the fact that despite selling it's soul, NASCAR still is behind F1.
Click to expand...

Bernie was just as impure as Nascar. He would sell off prestigious dates with a history for incredible fees at the most ridiculous locations.
They ran one race with the ambience of an India skyline burning dung. Pay the fee and he would book a race at a sewer.
Aside from Monoco, just about any date can be bought out.

And the manufacturing support edge they have isn't without a price. The dominant car will almost win the championship, a two car competition settled among teammates.

And when is the last time they put on a race like the last Monster Energy cup race. 4 solid teams had a real chance. They passed each on the track, ran close with no DRS or whatever acronym it is they need to run close to each other.
 
Acs said:
Not really, this is tracking total sponsorship spend in each, and NASCAR is far, far more commercialized than F1 is. F1 has a massive global fanbase second only to soccer, and for all the sh!t Bernie Ecclestone did he also negotiated massive TV deals in all the major markets that collectively are bigger than NASCAR (The UK F1 deal alone is 280m usd a year). F1 also has heavy manufacturer spending to rely on. F1 doesn't need to rely on sponsorship spending like NASCAR does. The cars are painted in national colors with strict limits on advertising space. Plus there are just far fewer cars to carry sponsorship in general.

Meanwhile across the pond the boys at NASCAR will sell just about anything they can to make a buck (yeah! Capitalism!). So we get cars with a different livery every week and drivers decked out in new firesuits using every available breath to tell the cameras about how awesome whatever company wrote a check this week is. We get the names of the races themselves sold to the highest bidder (who's ready for the iconic Rosanne 300 this weekend??). The pole award, the white flag, sold for sponsorship.The very names of the series itself is sold for sponsorship every 2 years.

No, the only thing I'm surprised by is the fact that despite selling it's soul, NASCAR still is behind F1.
Click to expand...
Yet somehow NASCAR racing is far more entertaining.
 
JGR president Dave Alpern said at the end of 2016 that sponsorship makes up 85% of their team revenue.

Meanwhile, F1 teams are taking in their 2017 final payments from FOM this month, totaling $940m across the field for the year. Ferrari took in about $220m in sponsorship in 2016 while taking in $192m from FOM.

Big difference in how these organizations are funded.
 
Greg said:
Bernie was just as impure as Nascar. He would sell off prestigious dates with a history for incredible fees at the most ridiculous locations.
They ran one race with the ambience of an India skyline burning dung. Pay the fee and he would book a race at a sewer.
Aside from Monoco, just about any date can be bought out.

And the manufacturing support edge they have isn't without a price. The dominant car will almost win the championship, a two car competition settled among teammates.

And when is the last time they put on a race like the last Monster Energy cup race. 4 solid teams had a real chance. They passed each on the track, ran close with no DRS or whatever acronym it is they need to run close to each other.
Click to expand...
Yeah, well stated Greg. I've been an avid F1 fan since the early 1960's, but I've not drunk the Kool-Aid about F1 being the ultimate racing art form, blah, blah. Things there behind the F1 curtain are often not what they appear to be.
 
FLRacingFan said:
JGR president Dave Alpern said at the end of 2016 that sponsorship makes up 85% of their team revenue.

Meanwhile, F1 teams are taking in their 2017 final payments from FOM this month, totaling $940m across the field for the year. Ferrari took in about $220m in sponsorship in 2016 while taking in $192m from FOM.

Big difference in how these organizations are funded.
Click to expand...

Ferrari gets a special "historical" payment for being Ferrari.

Meanwhile, other independent teams with 20+ years on the grid DO NOT receive any "historical" payment. Meaning, Williams and Sauber are ****ted on payment wise every year.
 
There is a part of me that wants to start a new thread.
I think Nascar is running races better now than ever, at least the last 10 years. I don't have a time line, but it started happening (for me) last year.

We have significant tire wear and long green runs to fatigue and wear out most. While leaving 3 or 4 cars near the front that can pass, and run slightly different pit cycles.
It is really an incredible story that unfolds for each race. I wish the old Stock Car Racing Magizine edited by Dick Berggren was still around. The current racing is worthy of the best ink. The drama is good enough to hold the interest, and to be reviewed in detail during the following weeks.

I have never needed 150k fans to validate things. It is like a girlfriend, if you need someone to tell you she's beautiful you are already an idiot for needing confirmation of something so obvious. But I do believe the fan base will increase, if the current quality is sustained.

One last tacky analogy : Good racing like we are seeing now, will give some kids the fever. It will put racing in their blood, just like ours.

All of the other crap will take care of itself.
 
FLRacingFan said:
JGR president Dave Alpern said at the end of 2016 that sponsorship makes up 85% of their team revenue.

Meanwhile, F1 teams are taking in their 2017 final payments from FOM this month, totaling $940m across the field for the year. Ferrari took in about $220m in sponsorship in 2016 while taking in $192m from FOM.

Big difference in how these organizations are funded.
Click to expand...

Those numbers there alone would seem to call the pie chart into question, or am I missing something?
 
Formerjackman said:
Those numbers there alone would seem to call the pie chart into question, or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Yes, you are.

The pie chart reflects SPONSORSHIP dollars spent on teams, tracks and “leagues”.

FOM payments to race teams are part of what said teams earn ... rather like the payout to NASCAR owners for their final points standing.
 
Greg said:
There is a part of me that wants to start a new thread.
I think Nascar is running races better now than ever, at least the last 10 years. I don't have a time line, but it started happening (for me) last year.

We have significant tire wear and long green runs to fatigue and wear out most. While leaving 3 or 4 cars near the front that can pass, and run slightly different pit cycles.
It is really an incredible story that unfolds for each race. I wish the old Stock Car Racing Magizine edited by Dick Berggren was still around. The current racing is worthy of the best ink. The drama is good enough to hold the interest, and to be reviewed in detail during the following weeks.

I have never needed 150k fans to validate things. It is like a girlfriend, if you need someone to tell you she's beautiful you are already an idiot for needing confirmation of something so obvious. But I do believe the fan base will increase, if the current quality is sustained.

One last tacky analogy : Good racing like we are seeing now, will give some kids the fever. It will put racing in their blood, just like ours.

All of the other crap will take care of itself.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see what the younger demographic looks like as the year progresses.
 
BobbyFord said:
Sounds to me like sponsors aren’t getting much of a return.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that, once the bubble finishes correcting itself, I think they return. The decals will just be less expensive.
 
Greg said:
There is a part of me that wants to start a new thread.
I think Nascar is running races better now than ever, at least the last 10 years. I don't have a time line, but it started happening (for me) last year.

We have significant tire wear and long green runs to fatigue and wear out most. While leaving 3 or 4 cars near the front that can pass, and run slightly different pit cycles.
It is really an incredible story that unfolds for each race. I wish the old Stock Car Racing Magizine edited by Dick Berggren was still around. The current racing is worthy of the best ink. The drama is good enough to hold the interest, and to be reviewed in detail during the following weeks.
Click to expand...

I think you should start that thread, because it is a worthy separate discussion. I am feeling much the same way. I try to pay as little mind to the stupid plate races as possible. The last three events have been excellent, especially the last one. I don't accept the validity of the stages, but they haven't expanded them (yet) . The last half of these races are being allowed to play out naturally, and the current package is vastly superior to what they had 5-10 years ago.

The current races are almost purist in their appeal. I question whether this will be allowed to continue with the signs of decreasing interest. Someone will want to 'spice it up'. I hope I'm wrong.
 
gnomesayin said:
I think you should start that thread, because it is a worthy separate discussion.
Click to expand...
@Greg I agree. You should start that thread. It will provoke discussion and argument. If we are gonna argue every day, might as well argue about something interesting!
 
What drinks did they order?
gnomesayin said:
I think you should start that thread, because it is a worthy separate discussion. I am feeling much the same way. I try to pay as little mind to the stupid plate races as possible. The last three events have been excellent, especially the last one. I don't accept the validity of the stages, but they haven't expanded them (yet) . The last half of these races are being allowed to play out naturally, and the current package is vastly superior to what they had 5-10 years ago.

The current races are almost purist in their appeal. I question whether this will be allowed to continue with the signs of decreasing interest. Someone will want to 'spice it up'. I hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
The last three races have been excellent like you said, the actual racing has been really good, I think they are finally making progress with this Gen6 body and finding what will provide better racing. And really, gotta give props to race control for letting the races play out without their help.
 
Greg said:
There is a part of me that wants to start a new thread.
I think Nascar is running races better now than ever, at least the last 10 years. I don't have a time line, but it started happening (for me) last year.

We have significant tire wear and long green runs to fatigue and wear out most. While leaving 3 or 4 cars near the front that can pass, and run slightly different pit cycles.
It is really an incredible story that unfolds for each race. I wish the old Stock Car Racing Magizine edited by Dick Berggren was still around. The current racing is worthy of the best ink. The drama is good enough to hold the interest, and to be reviewed in detail during the following weeks.

I have never needed 150k fans to validate things. It is like a girlfriend, if you need someone to tell you she's beautiful you are already an idiot for needing confirmation of something so obvious. But I do believe the fan base will increase, if the current quality is sustained.

One last tacky analogy : Good racing like we are seeing now, will give some kids the fever. It will put racing in their blood, just like ours.

All of the other crap will take care of itself.
Click to expand...

I always liked Dr. Dick Berggren. He was always smart and insightful. Nothing remotely phony. He's one of the guys I wish was still around on race day.
 
mack said:
I always liked Dr. Dick Berggren. He was always smart and insightful. Nothing remotely phony. He's one of the guys I wish was still around on race day.
Click to expand...
Dr Dirt, oh yes, I miss him on pit road.
 
LewTheShoe said:
View attachment 33938
Click to expand...
I'm sure I'm not looking at the same car twice, but darned if I can tell them apart. Just another reason I don't watch F1.
kyle18fan said:
Moto -Gp is a great show ...... no frills, no chills and no damned stages ............ just racing
Click to expand...
Why is it I have no interest in motorcycle racing? Is it related to my complete lack of interest in motorcycles in general? Maybe I just haven't looked at it close enough to figure out what's going on.
Regardless, http://www.motogp.com/en/ does a lousy job of explaining the basics of the sport to this casual fan looking for more information. What's 'MotoGP', 'Moto2', 'Moto3'? Sure sounds like stages to me. How is qualifying run? Are the races run based on a time limit or a number of laps? I'm not asking here for answers, just pointing out their site doesn't help educate people.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I'm sure I'm not looking at the same car twice, but darned if I can tell them apart. Just another reason I don't watch F1.
Click to expand...
I've never understood the appeal of F1. The racing that I've seen yielded little excitement when compared to NASCAR. I tried watching a year or two ago. I think in four races that I watched, the leader into turn #1 lap #1 was the winner of the race. I just looked up some stats from their most recent 2017 season. Forty-six, the total number of lead changes over the twenty race season in F1. Three races produced zero lead changes. Two times in 2017 did the winner come out of a starting position outside the top three. I guess this appeals to someone but not this race fan.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
I've never understood the appeal of F1. The racing that I've seen yielded little excitement when compared to NASCAR. I tried watching a year or two ago. I think in four races that I watched, the leader into turn #1 lap #1 was the winner of the race. I just looked up some stats from their most recent 2017 season. Forty-six, the total number of lead changes over the twenty race season in F1. Three races produced zero lead changes. Two times in 2017 did the winner come out of a starting position outside the top three. I guess this appeals to someone but not this race fan.
Click to expand...

F1 is an engineering exercise. Therefore all the racing is done in qualifying before the race.
Usually lap 1 is the final part of the race. That's when the idiots get to wreck their cars.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
I've never understood the appeal of F1. The racing that I've seen yielded little excitement when compared to NASCAR. I tried watching a year or two ago. I think in four races that I watched, the leader into turn #1 lap #1 was the winner of the race. I just looked up some stats from their most recent 2017 season. Forty-six, the total number of lead changes over the twenty race season in F1. Three races produced zero lead changes. Two times in 2017 did the winner come out of a starting position outside the top three. I guess this appeals to someone but not this race fan.
Click to expand...
Montoya said he watches the first lap then turns it off.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
I've never understood the appeal of F1. The racing that I've seen yielded little excitement when compared to NASCAR. I tried watching a year or two ago. I think in four races that I watched, the leader into turn #1 lap #1 was the winner of the race. I just looked up some stats from their most recent 2017 season. Forty-six, the total number of lead changes over the twenty race season in F1. Three races produced zero lead changes. Two times in 2017 did the winner come out of a starting position outside the top three. I guess this appeals to someone but not this race fan.
Click to expand...
I can tolerate a dominant leader; after all, that's what we've seen in NASCAR the past three weeks and for much of last season. But I can only tolerate it IF positions are being actively swapped further back in the pack AND the broadcaster shows them to us.
It's not that F1 has relatively few lead changes, it's that it appears to have few positions changing throughout the entire field.
Team Penske said:
F1 is an engineering exercise. Therefore all the racing is done in qualifying before the race.
Usually lap 1 is the final part of the race. That's when the idiots get to wreck their cars.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I keep hearing that. That doesn't make me want to watch. In fact, it actually discourages me.
 
Kinda figured it would go this way. Whole lot less F-1 fans here. I wonder if they are counting Nascar world wide, they have a number of series they are involved with. With only a 4.5 % difference, including those if they haven't would make a difference. Those series run with sponsorship help also.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Why is it I have no interest in motorcycle racing? Is it related to my complete lack of interest in motorcycles in general? Maybe I just haven't looked at it close enough to figure out what's going on.

Regardless, http://www.motogp.com/en/ does a lousy job of explaining the basics of the sport to this casual fan looking for more information. What's 'MotoGP', 'Moto2', 'Moto3'? Sure sounds like stages to me. How is qualifying run? Are the races run based on a time limit or a number of laps? I'm not asking here for answers, just pointing out their site doesn't help educate people.
Click to expand...



3 different classes on different bikes .......... the Moto-2 and 3 races are usually hard fought and worth watching. The big bikes are great to watch as well
 
Kiante said:
Ferrari gets a special "historical" payment for being Ferrari.

Meanwhile, other independent teams with 20+ years on the grid DO NOT receive any "historical" payment. Meaning, Williams and Sauber are ****ted on payment wise every year.
Click to expand...
It is, to say the least, interesting how it all works. Ferrari get almost $70m just for being Ferrari. Williams get a $10m heritage payout. Red Bull and Mercedes each get $35m bonuses, the former for signing the most recent bilateral agreement first and the latter for meeting its agreed-upon target of two championships. Ferrari, Mercedes, Red Bull, and McLaren all have separate deals for another bonus exceeding $30m. Is it all fair, probably not. But Sauber getting ~ $50m is still way more than any NASCAR team can ever hope to collect from NASCAR. Vast differences between how the two operate.


Plus, Formula E isn't at all only half as expensive as IndyCar. It's just propped up by factories - BMW, Audi, Nissan, Porsche, Mercedes, Ford, Jaguar all involved or soon to be involved. They're basically just big R&D efforts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom