Former F1 world champion Mario Andretti held a press conference outside the U.S. Capitol with Michigan Rep. John James to make their case for admitting Andretti Cadillac on the grid.
As the article explains, Congressmen invoked the Sherman Act. That has to do with competitive markets. congress has the authority to make laws and make sure they are followed in interstate commerce, which F1 falls under. So, they are doing their job.
The NFL doesn’t allow competition from teams from plenty of countries. Should those countries be able to sue the NFL on that basis, saying it’s anti-competitive?
If your opinion on the above is “no”, could you then explain what merits this double standard?
There seems to be an element of US exceptionalism here. The US does not get to impose management terms on foreign sporting organisations, except for the events that take place within their borders.
The NFL, MLB, and whatever US based sports leagues actually have exceptions to the Sherman antitrust act. F1 does not have this, but are owned by a US based, publicly traded company, and are this is subject to US law, including the Sherman antitrust act.
They have those clauses in the US, not the UK. So based on your logic the UK should be able to tell the NFL what they can/can’t do regardless of US law.
You’re arguing both ways. That the UK can’t impose terms on the NFL because it’s under US law, but that the US can impose terms on FOM despite being under UK law.
Incorrect. FOM is a UK company based in the UK. They are under UK jurisdiction, not US jurisdiction.
Think of it this way, McDonalds is an American company, but their UK subsidiary has to follow UK law, not American law. Does that make sense to you? The UK business follows UK advertising law, food safety law, employee protection law, environmental law, etc. Not US law.
If they operate in the US, like they are at this very moment in Miami, they are supposed to follow US law. They don’t get some weird ass exception just cause the governing body is located elsewhere. Just like countries are free to ban cigarette advertising, the US does have the ability to say “you want to race here, follow our rules.”
Think of it this way, McDonalds is an American company, but their UK subsidiary has to follow UK law, not American law. But if that UK franchisee wants to open a store in the US, they still have to follow US law. Does that make sense to you? The business that is operating in the US follows US advertising law, food safety law, employee protection law, environmental law, etc. Not JUST UK law.
Yes, they can revoke their Miami race. Good, we’re getting somewhere. I’m glad you’ve come around and changed your stance.
They have jurisdiction of what happens in the US, but not elsewhere. I.e. they can blackmail FOM by saying if you don’t allow (another) American team into F1 then you can’t race in the US…
But they cannot apply US laws to FOM or enforce that they must allow more entrants.
Not JUST UK law.
Yes just UK law. A McDonald’s in the UK only has to follow UK law. If you think otherwise, you are wrong.
If the NFL received a request to franchise a foreign team and rejected it, they would state why, per their own rules, they rejected it. That is what the letter demands.
Understand?
So, to go back in time…
The FIA spent months of due diligence on the Andretti Global business plan and resources. They pronounced them good to go.
The teams and Liberty made Andretti jump through hoops, and rejected them giving no good reason.
It proves nothing other than it’s their sporting organisation where they call the shots, and they called a shot.
Is it anti-competitive for a private sporting organisation to not allow people to enter whenever they want? I don’t think so.
Again, since you keep dodging it, should the UK or elsewhere be able to force the NFL to grant entry to UK teams on the grounds of it being anti-competitive as it stands?
As the article says, the Congressman from Michigan is involved. Michigan is the home of GM. GM is going to reintroduce the Cadillac name to Europe. GM is being excluded from marketing though F1. So, it’s probably GM not Mario. Though, Mario has plenty of money.
It’s been said that old Mario made twice as much money trading stock than he did racing cars. He was better at it than his twin brother Aldo, who was a very successful stock broker.
I can’t remember what the exact numbers were, but that last time I saw someone put together charts of “oh this company gave $X to Reps A, B, and C, and they all backed this law, hm”, it was something depressingly low, like 25k.
Surely any country could do this, making it laughably unrealistic.
Any country could just say “according to our interpretation of our law X, you must allow new F1 entries from our country”
I imagine the FIA is under no obligation to allow entry of a team just because some country where the FIA isn’t even based demands it.
I guess Liberty being American adds complexity, but as far as I know it’s not up to them.
Similarly, if the UK said their laws state that UK teams should be able to join the NFL, it should be laughed at. But that’s what the US is doing here.
The EU also has laws about anti competitive practices and I would think this letter might stir their interest.
First of all, the FIA is a sanctioning body which only owns the F1 brand. It is very much in the US, since it sanctions racing here. I myself held an FIA license. The FIA approved Andretti’s inclusion.
Liberty and the F1 Constructors are the ones on the hook.
Yes, I’m aware there are races in the US. I’m saying all they can really do is stop them from racing in the US, and a couple of other peripheral things to be a thorn in F1’s side to apply pressure. They can’t really impose terms on the FIA beyond that, because it’s not their jurisdiction.
Besides, the Concorde Agreement is set out in English law. They’d have to challenge it in an English court.
Seems to me there might be other kinds of problems. For instance, Formula One is listed on the NY Stock Exchange. At the very least, an anti-trust suit would wound the company. But, it could turn into bigger things. GM/Andretti would get a whole lot of money in damages. Considering what happened to FIFA…
But, this letter is merely a shot across the bow it seems to me. They have to answer it, so we’ll see what they say.
Agreed. But they can’t really force the FIA to follow and rules the US says, as the FIA isn’t in the US. All they can do is threaten to not let them race in the US.
Additionally, the Concorde Agreement, which is what they’re taking issue with, is set out in English Law, and would need to be challenged in an English court.
All they could really do is threaten to take US races away, or the Netflix series. The FIA, constructors, and to some extent FOM is not under US jurisdiction.
As the article explains, Congressmen invoked the Sherman Act. That has to do with competitive markets. congress has the authority to make laws and make sure they are followed in interstate commerce, which F1 falls under. So, they are doing their job.
The NFL doesn’t allow competition from teams from plenty of countries. Should those countries be able to sue the NFL on that basis, saying it’s anti-competitive?
If your opinion on the above is “no”, could you then explain what merits this double standard?
There seems to be an element of US exceptionalism here. The US does not get to impose management terms on foreign sporting organisations, except for the events that take place within their borders.
The NFL, MLB, and whatever US based sports leagues actually have exceptions to the Sherman antitrust act. F1 does not have this, but are owned by a US based, publicly traded company, and are this is subject to US law, including the Sherman antitrust act.
They have those clauses in the US, not the UK. So based on your logic the UK should be able to tell the NFL what they can/can’t do regardless of US law.
You’re arguing both ways. That the UK can’t impose terms on the NFL because it’s under US law, but that the US can impose terms on FOM despite being under UK law.
Incorrect. FOM is a UK company based in the UK. They are under UK jurisdiction, not US jurisdiction.
Think of it this way, McDonalds is an American company, but their UK subsidiary has to follow UK law, not American law. Does that make sense to you? The UK business follows UK advertising law, food safety law, employee protection law, environmental law, etc. Not US law.
If they operate in the US, like they are at this very moment in Miami, they are supposed to follow US law. They don’t get some weird ass exception just cause the governing body is located elsewhere. Just like countries are free to ban cigarette advertising, the US does have the ability to say “you want to race here, follow our rules.”
Think of it this way, McDonalds is an American company, but their UK subsidiary has to follow UK law, not American law. But if that UK franchisee wants to open a store in the US, they still have to follow US law. Does that make sense to you? The business that is operating in the US follows US advertising law, food safety law, employee protection law, environmental law, etc. Not JUST UK law.
Yes, they can revoke their Miami race. Good, we’re getting somewhere. I’m glad you’ve come around and changed your stance.
They have jurisdiction of what happens in the US, but not elsewhere. I.e. they can blackmail FOM by saying if you don’t allow (another) American team into F1 then you can’t race in the US…
But they cannot apply US laws to FOM or enforce that they must allow more entrants.
Yes just UK law. A McDonald’s in the UK only has to follow UK law. If you think otherwise, you are wrong.
There’s usually a reason. What is the reason? It is the answer to the letters question.
I don’t know what you’re saying, can you speak plainly? This reads like a chatGPT response or a bad attempt at a riddle.
Should countries be able to compel the NFL to allow entry to teams they like, on the basis that not allowing them in is anti-competitive?
If no, then what’s with the double standard? Is it American exceptionalism? Something else?
If the NFL received a request to franchise a foreign team and rejected it, they would state why, per their own rules, they rejected it. That is what the letter demands.
Understand?
So, to go back in time…
The FIA spent months of due diligence on the Andretti Global business plan and resources. They pronounced them good to go.
The teams and Liberty made Andretti jump through hoops, and rejected them giving no good reason.
There’s already an explanation: because they wanted to and aren’t obliged to let anybody into their club that wants to join.
And nah, the NFL doing that wouldn’t matter. Not letting them in would still be anti-competitive and not following UK law.
So, that proves they are anti competitive and they’ll be referred to the the DOJ just like FIFA. Congrats
It proves nothing other than it’s their sporting organisation where they call the shots, and they called a shot.
Is it anti-competitive for a private sporting organisation to not allow people to enter whenever they want? I don’t think so.
Again, since you keep dodging it, should the UK or elsewhere be able to force the NFL to grant entry to UK teams on the grounds of it being anti-competitive as it stands?
It’s a business listed on the NYSE. As such, it must follow the laws of the US.
You’ve never used chatgpt
Wrong.
Or andretti made a considerable donation to their campaign ;)
As the article says, the Congressman from Michigan is involved. Michigan is the home of GM. GM is going to reintroduce the Cadillac name to Europe. GM is being excluded from marketing though F1. So, it’s probably GM not Mario. Though, Mario has plenty of money.
I don’t know enough about American politics to know how much it costs to pay off a rep, but Mario racked up over $100,000 worth of donations to Republicans, and his daughter-in-law, Jodi Peterson, about $30,000 to both parties.
Edit: Mario is at $144k according to www.fec.gov
It’s been said that old Mario made twice as much money trading stock than he did racing cars. He was better at it than his twin brother Aldo, who was a very successful stock broker.
I can’t remember what the exact numbers were, but that last time I saw someone put together charts of “oh this company gave $X to Reps A, B, and C, and they all backed this law, hm”, it was something depressingly low, like 25k.
Surely any country could do this, making it laughably unrealistic.
Any country could just say “according to our interpretation of our law X, you must allow new F1 entries from our country”
I imagine the FIA is under no obligation to allow entry of a team just because some country where the FIA isn’t even based demands it.
I guess Liberty being American adds complexity, but as far as I know it’s not up to them.
Similarly, if the UK said their laws state that UK teams should be able to join the NFL, it should be laughed at. But that’s what the US is doing here.
The EU also has laws about anti competitive practices and I would think this letter might stir their interest.
First of all, the FIA is a sanctioning body which only owns the F1 brand. It is very much in the US, since it sanctions racing here. I myself held an FIA license. The FIA approved Andretti’s inclusion.
Liberty and the F1 Constructors are the ones on the hook.
Yes, I’m aware there are races in the US. I’m saying all they can really do is stop them from racing in the US, and a couple of other peripheral things to be a thorn in F1’s side to apply pressure. They can’t really impose terms on the FIA beyond that, because it’s not their jurisdiction.
Besides, the Concorde Agreement is set out in English law. They’d have to challenge it in an English court.
Seems to me there might be other kinds of problems. For instance, Formula One is listed on the NY Stock Exchange. At the very least, an anti-trust suit would wound the company. But, it could turn into bigger things. GM/Andretti would get a whole lot of money in damages. Considering what happened to FIFA…
But, this letter is merely a shot across the bow it seems to me. They have to answer it, so we’ll see what they say.
But F1 is racing in the US, in theory there’s a threat of Vegas, Miami or COTA cancelling their contracts.
Agreed. But they can’t really force the FIA to follow and rules the US says, as the FIA isn’t in the US. All they can do is threaten to not let them race in the US.
Additionally, the Concorde Agreement, which is what they’re taking issue with, is set out in English Law, and would need to be challenged in an English court.
All they could really do is threaten to take US races away, or the Netflix series. The FIA, constructors, and to some extent FOM is not under US jurisdiction.
Not if the FIA want to stay and operate in that country. The FIA is not exempt from national laws.
Sure they can leave the US. But if they want to operate in the US, believe it or not, US laws apply.