Pay drivers are more of a debate than ever in the paddock

Every year, as the Formula 1 lineup takes shape with each transfer, the recruitment of so-called pay drivers always sparks debate within the paddock. There was a time when teams would try to justify the real motivations behind recruiting drivers known to be well-funded, but the more fragile teams in the paddock no longer hide the fact that their economic situation requires them to consider financial criteria when choosing their drivers: “I think it’s fair to say that we have drivers who have commercial value,” acknowledges Cyril Abiteboul, the team director of Caterham, to Sky Sports. “I don’t know if the term ambassador applies, but they are backed by companies [and] I don’t see this as something negative. I think there is a good balance between their sporting and commercial value. Giedo [van der Garde] is with McGregor, a company that has supported him since 2007, I believe. If they’ve been supporting him for five or six years, it means something. McGregor also sponsored Williams and was involved with other teams. They understand how Formula 1 works. The fact that they support a particular driver is another argument in favor of Giedo. It’s the same with Charles, who is backed by Renault. These are things that matter because when you’re a young team, it’s not easy to attract sponsors. It’s something we’re not ashamed to admit we need, but I don’t think we’ve prioritized this aspect more than other characteristics of a driver.”

If the phenomenon seems to be gaining momentum this season, it appears primarily due to certain teams realizing that they might have been living beyond the means allowed by the current economic context. Indeed, by calling on experienced drivers such as Timo Glock, Heikki Kovalainen, Jarno Trulli, or Pedro de la Rosa, the new teams like Caterham (formerly Lotus), Marussia (formerly Virgin), and the now-defunct HRT were showing an ambition that Cyril Abiteboul now admits might not have been suited to the reality of their situation: “Perhaps what was done in the past did not work very well because everyone expected Caterham to join the middle of the pack more quickly,” analyzes the Caterham team director. “It didn’t happen [and] we know there are no shortcuts in Formula 1. Drivers are part of the team, but they are just one element among many. Perhaps they are the most important element, but given the car we have, I don’t think that’s the case. Again, it depends on where we are. It’s not our first priority.”

Some, however, regret this resurgence of pay drivers, starting with Martin Whitmarsh: « I personally find it sad that there are so many pay drivers in Formula 1, » laments the McLaren team principal during the private tests in Jerez. « The number has increased and I’m sure it’s fine for those who can afford it, but one would hope not to have to employ pay drivers in the pinnacle of motorsport. It means there are some good and young professional drivers who cannot come and are not coming. The turnover of drivers is now very low, and so teams become conservative and do not take risks, which results in immediate resources for the team but does not materialize in the development of their potential future driver. It’s sad to say, but the reason some of these boys are pay drivers—not all—is that they are fundamentally not good enough for Formula 1. »

If Bob Fernley, deputy director of the Sahara Force India team, acknowledges in Autosport having difficulty with the notion of “pay driver” and believes that the drivers in Formula 1 are of very high quality and that the fact they have the opportunity to bring in additional budgets should not be seen negatively, Felipe Massa, for his part, agrees with Martin Whitmarsh by criticizing the pressure put on drivers to bring in a budget: “We know that many drivers, to get into Formula 1, now need sponsors and money, especially in smaller teams. Honestly, it’s not a good thing for Formula 1.”

The issue of pay drivers should not, however, lead to questioning the teams that resort to them, especially when they are forced to compete with a sometimes abyssal deficit in terms of media exposure compared to other leading teams. « Teams that shine on the track are able to attract sponsors, we know that, » emphasizes Cyril Abiteboul. « But it’s the eternal question of what comes first, the chicken or the egg, so we need to become attractive and think outside the box from a marketing perspective to increase our sponsorship capacity. »

For his part, Martin Whitmarsh points to the lack of renewal in the Formula 1 talent pools that are the promotion formulas, starting with the GP2 Series, where three of the five rookies recruited this season have spent more than three seasons: If during the development of a [promotion] formula, it is determined that a driver can only stay for two years and each team must hire a newcomer, I think it would purify the system to allow drivers to prove themselves. It would be good, and I’ve been saying this for a long time: having drivers in the promotion categories who stay for four or five years because they can’t afford to go elsewhere clogs the system. If ART and the top teams had to hire a rookie, then there would be a battle to secure their services. A good rookie driver could emerge because these top teams need him.

The fact remains that these so-called pay drivers refuse to play the bad role, starting with Luiz Razia who, even before being officially announced at Marussia, responded to the inevitable questions about his legitimacy: « Sometimes, drivers feel like they are portrayed as the ugly ducklings, but that’s not true. We are here to fulfill our dreams and I am here to fulfill my dream of being in Formula 1. I am a highly talented driver and I have had results throughout my career: I was a Formula 3 champion, I finished 3rd in F3000, and I am a GP2 vice-champion where I have won races. I have achieved the results I needed and I believe I have talent. But that’s how it works now, right? You need financial backing to help you start your careers: obviously, when you succeed in Formula 1, you likely have a return on investment, but I’m comfortable with that. I’m satisfied with my results and I think I’m here for all these reasons. »