Formula One: a sport ruined by capitalism

You have Mercedes out in front claiming nearly every race, then you have Renault on the midfield doing pretty good, and you have Williams struggling to get a single point. This hierarchy is determined by capitalism, because the better team gets more money than the worse team. The better you are, the more money you have, the better you can be, vice versa. Hierarchy exists and an occasional “proletariat hero” is extremely rare.

There are pay drivers. For those back markers they need money, and hiring one rich dude who can barely drive means saving their company. It became determined that how “good” you are is determined by your car, not yourselves. Lando Norris is here getting podiums and his colleague who performed better than him in 2018 in F2 is struggling to get any points at all, because the former got a good car and the latter got the worst.

In F2 all cars are equal(same brand, same engine) and there you can find the better driver. The better driver is better regardless of how bad the car is. We have examples upon examples for F2 talents getting shitboxes then decide to leave because they are treated unfairly.

Ah, capitalism.

Formula One: A sport which would not exist without capitalism.

Ah, capitalism.

Hahahah.

Ever watched film Moneyball (2011)?

this happens a lot in sports-money wins

I had a sniff of money-buys-everything years ago, and stopped watching it immediately. I’m happy to see I’m not the only one. 

I'm curious, people often debate whether foot ball players should get paid as much as they should, with formula one it seems apparent that they should be paid a lot, considering how much risk there is and all. So where do you think we should draw the line as being paid too much for sporting? 

High risk sports should receive higher pay to pay for future surgeries and such. I believe baseball has too large of a payroll for someone to be paid $380M dollars to throw 6 innings for 1/5 of the season

Definitely a fair position, I'm not all that familiar with the numbers for baseball, but intuitively at least, it seems much less risky than either sport, and therefore shouldn't get paid as much. Of course there is always the position that one signed on with the knowledge that it was very possible to get hurt? I don't know that doesn't seem very compelling to me at least.

There's a risk to baseball without a doubt. I mean some people can get seriously injured from baseball (eg: a pitcher gets the ball knockbacked in their face. If a pitcher is throwing 97mph, it's an exit velo of 107mph or more). But that is very rare. They also get payed more because of the longer season. But I think it should be assessed by risk factor. Football is the most dangerous sports and yet it's got the second lowest payroll of the Big 4 despite it being the most likely for serious injury. I think it depends on you view sports in general

Ofc I'd argue risk factor > season duration when deciding payrolls

I had occasion to be in Monaco a few years ago, and attended the Grand Prix. Had not been there since '69, but it was as exciting lately as it was 50 years ago. To me, not ruined at all, and better than any Super Bowl. But then, I've driven my Porsche at 150 mph down an empty stretch of highway between Santa Cruz and Monterey, but I've never been on the field at Super Bowl.

Sport is the taking part and not the watching.

I'd say its only fair to include both sides whenever the people watching encompass such a large side of professional sports.