Changes to Formula 1 are on their way, with a number of initiatives designed to address both the financial and the competitive side of things.
The most eye-catching new rule will see double points awarded for the final race of the season.
The logic behind the plan is that more points to play for at the death will reduce the likelihood of the season petering out as it has done so often in modern times.
READ MORE: {}
The final standings will remain in play for longer, in other words.
However, while it might result in greater movement at the end of the season in terms of the drivers and constructors championship places, it is not clear that the change would have a huge effect on the overall winners.
After all, had double points been awarded in the final race of the season over the past two decades, the world championship would have been won by someone different on only three occasions.
As often happens when major changes to established sporting practices are announced, the idea has been met with a negative response.
Fans don’t like the idea that one race should be deemed as being more important than any other, and they have been backed by current world champion Sebastian Vettel.
Most Read
The Red Bull driver was quick to speak out, saying the plan betrays F1’s traditions.
“This is absurd and punishes those who have worked hard for a whole season,” Vettel told Sport Bild.
“I value the old traditions in Formula One and do not understand this new rule. Drivers, fans and experts are horrified.”
Vettel said that double points would never be awarded for a particular football match, and the same should apply to F1.
The news came out of a meeting this week of the Strategy Group, F1’s new rule-making body. It comprises governing body the FIA, six of the 11 teams and commercial boss Bernie Ecclestone.
Red Bull voted against the points change, but both Ferrari and Mercedes were in favour of it.
It could have been even worse for the purists. Red Bull motorsport adviser Helmut Marko told Sport Bild: “At first it was planned to award double points for the last four races. Then the World Championship (up to that point) would have been almost useless.”
Don’t miss
Martin Brundle, the former driver who is now a television pundit, said the controversy was completely unnecessary as it was an issue that hadn’t needed addressing.
According to the Daily Telegraph, Brundle said the news was akin to “an answer to a question nobody was asking”. He said it “devalued” other races.
The plan brings back memories of English football’s Game 39 proposal a few years ago.
That ill-conceived plan would have involved all 20 Premier League clubs jetting off to various cities around the world for a weekend in January to play a single round of 10 games. The idea was conceived entirely for commercial reasons – the people behind it did not attempt to claim any sporting justification for it at all.
In the end, the plan was shelved after a response that was a mixture of incredulity, hilarity and anger.
Most of world football’s top officials opposed it.
Fifa president Sepp Blatter said the idea brought the game into disrepute, and added: “Football cannot be like the Harlem Globetrotters or a circus.”
Uefa’s Michel Platini said it was a “nonsense idea”.
Opposition to Game 39 was based on two factors.
First, there was distaste at the rampant commercialisation of the sport – this was considered to be a step too far even for the huge corporate machine that is Premier League football. But it also upset people in terms of its fairness.
Why should one relegation-threatened club be forced to play their extra game against the champions, for example, while a rival was drawn to play a mid-table team?
That is the crucial difference with the F1 points plan. Although it, too, has been met with opposition, at least it treats all teams the same.
The points change was not the only thing to come out of the Strategy Group’s meeting in Paris.
There will also be a cost cap introduced in 2015 – a move aimed at keeping the lesser teams afloat financially.
It is an idea that has been floated for a few years, with the sport hit particularly badly by the economic problems that began in 2008.
“The principle of a global cost cap has been adopted,” the FIA said in a statement following the meeting.
“A working group will be established within the coming days comprising the FIA, representatives of the commercial rights holder and team representatives.
“The objective of the working group will be to have regulations approved by the end of June 2014.”
BBC F1 writer Andrew Benson said: “Teams have been working to reduce costs for a number of years as a result of financial circumstances caused by the global economic slowdown.
“A resource-restriction agreement was introduced in 2011 but it has been fraught with difficulties and attempts to introduce a cap on total spending by each team have so far been rejected, primarily by Red Bull.”
It seems that progress on this issue is finally being made. The devil will be in the detail, however.”
At the moment, it is thought that F1 budgets range between about $60 million and several hundred million dollars per team, so the level at which the cap is set will be crucial. If the cost cap per team is $150m a year, for example, it will have little effect. The teams with the smaller budgets will still be at a huge disadvantage and will feel pressure to increase their spending – something the cost cap is presumably intended to prevent.
It’s a case of waiting to see what impact these changes make to the world of F1. The cost cap idea seems to be a sensible one in principle, but the jury is out on whether the changing of the points structure for the last race of the season pays off.
Analysts seem to think that particular change will go ahead, as there is a feeling it is unlikely to result in fans losing interest, despite the negative reaction to the news. They will still tune in to watch the races in their millions, regardless of the points system.
But it is another example of how the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mantra disappeared from the world of sport a long time ago.