Why rejecting Andretti is a wrong turn for Formula 1

Formula 1's rejection of Andretti Formula Racing overlooks potential for greater fan engagement and technological advancement

Andretti Global and Cadillac logo

The recent decision to reject Andretti Formula Racing‘s application to join the FIA Formula 1 World Championship in 2025 has sparked a wave of disappointment and debate within the motorsport community. While the comprehensive commercial assessment process conducted by the FIA and the Commercial Rights Holder (CRH) outlines several valid concerns, this decision represents a significant missed opportunity for Formula 1 and global motorsport.

Firstly, the decision undervalues the Andretti legacy’s potential impact on fan engagement and Formula 1‘s global appeal. The assessment dismisses the Andretti name’s value, suggesting that F1 would bring more value to the Andretti brand than vice versa.

This perspective overlooks the rich history and fan base associated with the Andretti name, especially in North America, a market where F1 has been keen to expand its footprint. The entry of Andretti Formula Racing could have been a catalyst for increased viewership, sponsor interest, and broader audience engagement, particularly in the United States.

Secondly, the rejection seems to shortchange the potential of new teams and technologies. While concerns about the competitiveness of a new entrant are valid, they also reflect a conservative approach that may stifle innovation and diversity in the sport.

The collaboration with General Motors (GM), although not initially including a power unit (PU) supply, represents a forward-looking partnership that could bring fresh technological perspectives and competition to the grid. Dismissing this potential because of immediate challenges overlooks the long-term benefits that such a partnership could yield.

The decision also overlooks the benefits of expanding the Formula 1 grid. The addition of an 11th team, while operationally challenging, could have injected new energy and competition into the sport. Concerns about the operational burden on race promoters and the impact on existing teams’ technical and commercial space seem overemphasized.

Formula 1 has always been about adapting to change and innovation; adding a new team could have been a step towards a more dynamic and varied competition.

Neglecting the Spirit of Competition and Growth

Most importantly, this decision seems to neglect the spirit of competition and growth that underpins Formula 1. The assessment’s focus on immediate competitiveness and financial results is unduly narrow.

Formula 1 should be a platform where new teams can enter, grow, and eventually compete at the highest level. By setting the bar too high for new entrants, Formula 1 risks becoming an exclusive club, inaccessible to potentially valuable new competitors.

While the FIA and the CRH have legitimate concerns about Andretti Formula Racing’s immediate competitiveness and financial impact, their decision to reject the application is shortsighted.

It overlooks the broader benefits of embracing new teams and partnerships, expanding the sport’s global appeal, and fostering a more dynamic and competitive environment. Formula 1 should reconsider its approach to new entrants and embrace the opportunities they present for the sport’s future growth and success.

Reasons F1 rejected Andretti’s entry application

  1. Lack of Immediate Value: The assessment concluded that the addition of an 11th team, in this case, Andretti, would not inherently provide value to the F1 Championship.
  2. Competitiveness Concerns: There were doubts about Andretti’s ability to be competitive, especially since competing for podiums and race wins is seen as crucial for increasing fan engagement and the F1 Championship’s value.
  3. Power Unit (PU) Supply Issues: The proposed association with General Motors (GM) did not initially include PU supply. This absence was seen as a drawback, reducing the application’s credibility.
  4. Regulatory Cycle Challenges: Andretti proposed to build a car under the 2025 regulations and then a completely different car under the 2026 regulations, viewed as a significant challenge for a new entrant.
  5. Dependency on Rival PU Manufacturer: There were concerns about Andretti’s dependency on a compulsory supply from a rival PU manufacturer, which could potentially limit collaboration and pose intellectual property risks.
  6. Financial Sustainability Questions: Andretti’s financial sustainability, based on the materials provided, was a point of consideration.
  7. Operational and Financial Impact: The addition of an 11th team was seen as potentially burdensome operationally for race promoters and not having a material positive effect on the Commercial Rights Holder’s financial results.
  8. Brand Value Perception: The assessment suggested that F1 would add more value to the Andretti brand than vice versa, indicating a perceived imbalance in the mutual benefit.
  9. Long-term Viability Concerns: There were doubts about the long-term viability and competitiveness of Andretti, especially in relation to becoming a new Power Unit manufacturer in partnership with GM.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here