Formula 1 Is First On the Chopping Board for BBC, by Joshua Mason

Formula 1's TV contract with the BBC has been cancelled three years before the end. It has left those in and around the sport scratching their heads and looking for answers as to the reason behind the decision and where to go now. Channel 4 has answered one of those questions already swiftly swooping in to pick up the remaining contract. Has the BBC got off the ride just in time? Was the decision really money motivated? What does it mean for Formula 1?

The Facts

The BBC has cancelled its contract to cover F1
Photo: Octane Photography

Bernie Ecclestone has admitted that since the move to pay TV the amount of viewers in the UK of F1 has diminished. In 2009 the BBC's bringing the world's premium race back to the masses was seen as a coup. It was able to offer non-interrupted ad-free races and extended highlights to a greater audience. On top of these the world famous Fleetwood Mac song 'The Chain' would return, to the delight of fans everywhere. But less than six years later the BBC has cut all ties.

Barbara Slater of the BBC said "A significant chunk of BBC Sport's savings target will be delivered through the immediate termination of our TV rights agreement for Formula 1". It is true that the Beeb has been under pressure from the government to cut spending, and with a total saving of £150m to be made this year, there were always going to be big names getting the chop. Most notably The Voice was sold off to ITV. In sport the BBC has said it would like to concentrate on flagship events that have a national relevance such as Wimbledon or the World Cup. The cost of Match of the Day rose to £204m with the new TV deal too and therefore more 'niche' sports like F1 would have their budgets shrink (in this case all of it!).

Further thoughts on the Italian Grand Prix

Radio Ga Ga
Fernando Alonso finished in a worthy second place in the Italian Grand Prix, and then received much adulation from the assembled tifosi when on the lauded Monza podium. But still he quietly simmered. And with reason, as he was egregiously let down by the fourth estate of the media after the previous day's qualifying session, who'd managed to create one heck of a rumpus on his behalf, and from almost nothing. They said variously that he on his team radio during the qualifying session had barked that his team were 'really idiots' or similar, after attempts to have Felipe Massa help him via slipstreaming didn't come off. Moreover, some claimed that he said 'you have to let him' - by which they said he meant Felipe Massa - 'go', however we are to interpret that. Only he didn't say any of this. Didn't even come close.

Alonso, despite a good result, had a right to simmer
Photo: Octane Photography

And you can guess what happened next. Sure enough, once this was reported after Saturday's qualifying it was like flicking a switch. Many didn't wait for the full story, instead it seemed they were determined to believe the worst possible interpretation about a driver whom in many cases they clearly already had negative predispositions about, to crank up their offence, and to tell as many people so in as short a time period as possible. Social media, internet comments and forums descended into an ocean of faux outrage, with many seeking to give a convincing outward impression that they'd never heard of anyone raising their voice before, but the transparency of the relish with which they did so gave their motives away. Cliché followed cliché: Alonso had 'thrown his toys out of the pram' (whatever the heck that means); Alonso is 'poison'; Alonso is a spoiled brat; this was 2007 all over again (six years isn't long enough penance clearly); this was civil war erupting; Alonso would be sacked before the day was out.

The only tiny flaw however in all of this was that Alonso hadn't said anything like what was being claimed. It was revealed a while later that for one thing he was talking about having to let Nico Rosberg, on a quick lap, past him - not about Felipe Massa or the slipstreaming tactic. For another, rather than rant that his team were 'all idiots' or 'all stupid', he'd rather offered the sarcastic aside that they were 'geniuses' (as the Italian words are similar). While he clearly didn't intend it to be flattering it was all infinitely milder than the initial skewed 'translations' (one can only guess where and how those originated). It was a world away from 'you're idiots, get Massa's head on a spike'.

Sky falling in on F1? Thoughts on the BBC/Sky F1 TV rights deal

'(Rupert) Murdoch hasn't got anything really big to drive their TV audiences and Formula 1 would be good for that. They have been trying to buy the TV rights from us for a long time but we won't because they are not free-to-air television broadcasters. They are a subscription service. Sky is doing an incredible job but if you look at their audience figures they are nowhere.

'With these figures it would be almost impossible for teams to find sponsors. That would be suicidal.'

Who said this, and when? Well, in light of the events of the past two days, it may surprise you that these are the words of one Bernard Charles Ecclestone, and he said it as recently as at the Turkish Grand Prix in May this year. On the other hand, it might not be that much of a surprise.

But the problem is, depsite his subsequent Damascene conversion, I think Bernie may have been spot on first time around.

This action may only be available live on Sky from 2012
Credit: Alex Comerford/CC

Yes, news that UK based F1 fans had feared arrived early on Friday this week. The BBC, the current TV rights holders and free-to-air broadcasters, in a cost saving exercise will only show half of the F1 races and qualifying sessions live in the UK from next year onwards, with all of the races being available live on Sky, a subscription service (with the BBC showing deferred highlights of these races, possibly deferred full races if you believe Martin Whitmarsh but it seems the BBC are denying this). Such a deal had long been rumoured, but that hasn't tempered the anger in response to the actual decision being confirmed.

I share this anger, and the anger is mainly on the grounds that I think this decision will result in many F1 fans not being able to watch live coverage of the races for half of the season, with a subsequent marked drop in the numbers who follow F1. And ultimately this will be bad for the sport.

A few adjuncts from Korea

Red Bull not unreliable, contrary to popular belief

The Autosport website's post Grand Prix reviews, available to subscribers, are excellent. Given I'm a total nerd I particularly enjoy their 'Stat Attack' articles, which are a collection of stats and records established before and after each Grand Prix.

One thing that leapt out of their article after the Korean race was that the Red Bulls, contrary to what seems to be a commonly accepted belief in F1, actually have a very strong reliability record. For one thing, the Red Bulls, prior to the Korean race, were the F1 team who had gone the longest without a mechanical failure - the last one was Vettel's expiring brake disc all the way back in the Australian race. Indeed, Webber has not had a mechanical DNF this season (both his non-finishes were caused by accidents). Korea also ended a 22-race points scoring streak for the team, and going into the race the Bulls were one of only two teams who had scored in every race this season (McLaren is the other).

OK, there's an element of lies, damned lies and statistics here no doubt, and such stats ignore cases such as Vettel's brake problems in Barcelona and Monza, and his spark plug problem in Bahrain, which precluded better results in each case without actually stopping him. It's also the case that Vettel's three mechanical DNFs this year compare unfavourably with the two for Hamilton one for Alonso and Button. But for all we talk about Red Bull as being unreliable, and Adrian Newey 'pushing things to the edge' more than other designers, the numbers don't back up the point.

What Red Bull do next

A question probably still ringing in Christian Horner's ears since the Korean round is what he does now in terms of 'backing' Webber over Vettel for the title. Two rounds are left, with a maximum of 50 points available, and Webber trails championship-leading Alonso by 11 points, and Vettel trails Alonso by 25.

Does the Vettel collision fall-out confirm this season's battle lines?

The collision between Sebastian Vettel and Jenson Button was a major talking point from the Belgian GP at the weekend. However, for me, it was the response to the incident from McLaren that was more intriguing.

Martin Whitmarsh missed several opportunities to keep his mouth shut on the matter, describing Vettel's move as 'more reminiscent of junior formulae', his punishment (a drive through) as 'pretty light', as well as essentially calling Vettel too error-prone. And not missing an opportunity to refer back to the incident in Turkey, wherein Vettel collided with his team mate, Mark Webber, Whitmarsh added: 'I would rather he did it (collided) with his team-mates rather than do it with us'.

Ted Kravitz in the BBC's TV coverage of the Spa race recounted to us how a number of McLaren mechanics apparently went out into the pits to perform a 'passive aggressive' stance as Vettel completed his drive through. Even the normally mild-mannered Jenson had a pop, calling Vettel's move 'weird' and alleging that Vettel was 'rattled' and 'confused'.

You could argue that all of this reflects no more than a highly-competitive team expressing disappointment at having one of their cars taken out of the race at the business end of the season by, let's face it, a rather ham-fisted move. Yet this reaction is also the latest in a lengthy succession of needling emanating from Woking and in the direction of Milton Keynes.