FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[What's Burning?]

Ran into this today, doesn't complicate things much does it? I thought Europe was relatively liberal when compared to us here stateside.

The Telegraph Jean Todt, the FIA President, has come under fire over alcohol sponsorship in Formula One, as European Union plans to ban drinks advertising in sport gather pace. The move could put F1's smallest teams under even greater threat.

It has been a bumper year for alcohol advertising in Formula One, with the return of Martini to Williams in a deal worth around £10 million, and the announcement of Johnnie Walker as the official whisky supplier of the championship. McLaren also have Johnnie Walker on the side of their car, which is thought to bring £15 million a year. Smirnoff signed an agreement with Force India in May.

Todt and the FIA have consistently positioned themselves as ambassadors of road safety, with the former Ferrari team principal having one eye on a possible job at the United Nations. But this has incensed the road safety lobby and anti-alcohol bodies, given F1’s association with alcohol brands.

In a move reminiscent of the public campaign which was fought before tobacco sponsorship was banned in the 2000s, the European Alcohol Policy Alliance (Eurocare) has written an open letter to Todt, asking for a meeting and “rapid action” from the Frenchman.

Mariann Skar, the secretary general of the body, wrote: “When considering the continued destructive prevalence of drink-driving, permitting the mixed messages presented in alcohol sponsorship of Formula One seems ever more inappropriate given the total viewing audience of 500 million.

The alliance of 57 public health bodies across 25 European countries added: “[We are] deeply concerned of the heavy marketing exercise seen in Formula 1 and is therefore requesting an urgent change.”

Eurocare even claimed that F1 may already be in breach of several EU directives, as it begins a concerted attempt to persuade the new European Commission to ban alcohol advertising in sport.

The letter goes on: “Allowing alcohol sponsorship in Formula One seems to contradict many official guidelines for the marketing of alcohol. It runs against the EU Directive which states that marketing for the consumption of alcohol should not be linked to driving.

“Moreover, the current association between alcohol and driving does not seem to fall in the category of 'the widespread promotion of responsible drinking messages', part of the mission supported by the alcohol industry itself.”

It will lobby questions in the European Parliament and hold an event there on the subject next year. Eurocare has also invited David Ward - the bitter former presidential rival of Todt - to speak at an upcoming conference, which will no doubt ruffle a few feathers.

The FIA did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Copies of the letter have also been sent to Bernie Ecclestone, F1’s chief executive, World Health Organisation officials and various European Commissioners.

A ban on alcohol sponsorship would be disastrous for Formula One’s already struggling teams. Force India, who are fighting to stay on the grid, would be particularly hard hit. No major sponsor has entered the sport on an hugely lucrative deal over the past two years, with money increasingly tight.

France has already banned alcohol sponsorship, while a leaked Labour Party document suggested they will look to do the same if they win power next May.

[myownalias]

Stoopid European laws will drive F1 out of Europe completely, no more Spa, Monza, Monaco because of these big brother, nanny state rules.

[andrew]

Totally pointless. Kids are going to smoke and drink no matter what it says on an F1 car. Parents should be raising their offspring properly, not waiting for the Government or Europe to do it.

[CigarGuy]

Stoopid European laws will drive F1 out of Europe completely, no more Spa, Monza, Monaco because of these big brother, nanny state rules.

Indeed. Government control of anything is almost always bad........

[CookinFlat6]

They have a good point though and it's merely in line with the situation for every other business for ages. Why should F1 be treated differently? There's no proof that it's watched only by responsible balanced adults so they don't have a leg to stand on. We wouldn't like it if a company was allowed to advertise tobacco and drink on the back of our kids schoolbooks or at the school gates, so why should they be able to buy toy cars associated with the same subliminal messages?

The only issue here is how F1 got away with it for so long and why it has come to a head just now with teams like Force India Sahara close to the wall?

Ferrari is still advertising tobacco blatantly but it's the small teams that have provoked this action?

There the real story, I'm not saying Ferrari has grassed on Martini Williams or Sahara force India or johnnie walker McLaren, it's competitors I'm just saying..........

[myownalias]

The thing is were does it stop? gas and oil companies being stopped from advertizing in F1 because it pollutes our planet? potentially much more dangerous on a global scale than smoking or drinking! It is not upto governments to censor the World, we can make our own choices and should be responsible for guiding our own children down the correct path. People that will binge drink or drink heavily will do so regardless of seeing johnnie walker on the side of a car.

[What's Burning?]

F1 better get more fans with acne, dandruff, feminine itch, gingivitis, chronic halitosis, hemorrhoids and of course a sense of high fashion.

[CookinFlat6]

Come now guys, you know that the advertising ban on tobacco for example in Europe has directly led to less smoking related deaths, less addicts, lower hospital bills for welfare states, we all know that tobacco companies have been forced to cast their net to the so called third world to maintain profits, we all know that the children smoking have increased there.
This nanny state debate has been done and dusted - we all know that banning advertising of drink and smokes, and the banning of smoking in public places has again improve health rates and has been accepted after a lot of machismo and angst in certain places in Europe.

I dont think we need to worry about the nanny state or why they go down this route, F1 survived the tobacco ban (except Ferrari and its veto) and must survive the lawmakers in euroland asserting their expenses and perks.

The interesting part here IMO is why now?

edit: and Im not speaking from a bleeding heart POV, as I can say that shares in the tobacco companies have traditionally payed well in dividends and it would be childish not to partake the profits whilst the governments allow it.

[myownalias]

Come now guys, you know that the advertising ban on tobacco for example in Europe has directly led to less smoking related deaths, less addicts, lower hospital bills for welfare states, we all know that tobacco companies have been forced to cast their net to the so called third world to maintain profits, we all know that the children smoking have increased there.

The question I ask here, is it the tobacco advertizing ban that has reduced all the things you mention, or is it that people are better educated through schools and media campaigns? Having a cigarette brand name on the side of a car is not the same as saying "smoking is good for you" as in previous decades.

This nanny state debate has been done and dusted - we all know that banning advertising of drink and smokes, and the banning of smoking in public places has again improve health rates and has been accepted after a lot of machismo and angst in certain places in Europe.

There is also a flip side to enforced smoking bans in public places, and I was affected first hand by this; I used to run a successful club and live music night which was always busy until the smoking ban came into effect. Regulars stayed at home, bought some booze and smoked to their hearts content, while the business fell by the wayside. There were many other options such as a clear sign outside a venue/bar stating it is a smoking or non-smoking bar. they people could choose. Same goes for people who work in such establishments, they can choose to work in that environment or not, the nanny state is a huge problem in my view.

[stonemonkey]

It's a bit of a stretch to imagine that there's any correlation between alcohol advertising in F1 and drink driving, anyone getting into their car after a few has absolutely nothing to do with having seen johnnie walker written on the side of a racing car.

[myownalias]

It's a bit of a stretch to imagine that there's any correlation between alcohol advertising in F1 and drink driving, anyone getting into their car after a few has absolutely nothing to do with having seen johnnie walker written on the side of a racing car.

A very simple and concise statement, if I am going for a few drinks, which is rare these days, either there is a designated driver or we leave the car at home.

[CookinFlat6]

Come now guys, you know that the advertising ban on tobacco for example in Europe has directly led to less smoking related deaths, less addicts, lower hospital bills for welfare states, we all know that tobacco companies have been forced to cast their net to the so called third world to maintain profits, we all know that the children smoking have increased there.

The question I ask here, is it the tobacco advertizing ban that has reduced all the things you mention, or is it that people are better educated through schools and media campaigns? Having a cigarette brand name on the side of a car is not the same as saying "smoking is good for you" as in previous decades.

This nanny state debate has been done and dusted - we all know that banning advertising of drink and smokes, and the banning of smoking in public places has again improve health rates and has been accepted after a lot of machismo and angst in certain places in Europe.

There is also a flip side to enforced smoking bans in public places, and I was affected first hand by this; I used to run a successful club and live music night which was always busy until the smoking ban came into effect. Regulars stayed at home, bought some booze and smoked to their hearts content, while the business fell by the wayside. There were many other options such as a clear sign outside a venue/bar stating it is a smoking or non-smoking bar. they people could choose. Same goes for people who work in such establishments, they can choose to work in that environment or not, the nanny state is a huge problem in my view.

I know what you are saying about the side effects to these regulations and that the adverse effects on some businesses, all I am saying is that the whole debate is outside F1 and whether F1 causes people to jump in their cars with a half bottle of Jack D and see if they can really do that hand brake turn.
Just saying its part of something outside F1 and there is already a well entrenched debate with 2 sides, and 1 side won. Therefore whats the point of us saying the nanny state dont want us to have fun or want to pick on F1, its the law, and its the law because a welfare state is cheaper to run if less people get ill from preventable causes like tobacco and alcohol that creates short term profits for a few and long term social problems fior the welfare state and all its citizens. Its a debate that could even be polarized between left and right wing thinking - left would ban smoking, stop us spanking our kids, help us with our health, whilst right would say its each man for himself and if one mans oprofit is another mans gambling or alcohol or smoking addiction thats natures way

Anyway the point im making is that these things are all beyond F1, but F1 will be bound by the outcome one way or another, its the law. Not someone thinking F1 in particular is promoting this or that, its just the law that was brought in after a long war.

It will happen today or in a few years time. I just think we could be missing the real story here by reacting to the emotive aspect.

As far as the smoking ban killing establishments, here in the UK, it was thought that it would be really bad, but in the end it actually attracted more people to eat aetc for some, and the real killer of the pub is the supermarkets selling the drink for a tenth of the on premises price. And for live music the culprits are the usual xidol bllx

Interesting debate tho

[myownalias]

Regardless of the political debate, it will have a negative effect on F1, the three big industries that support F1 is alcohol, tobacco and oil/gas. It just ends up pushing F1 out of Europe, like any business, if a market is not profitable, you simply do your business elsewhere, so we end up with all races taking place in the UAE, Asia and the Americas. I remember not so long ago when 2/3 of the races took place in Europe, now its more like 1/3 of the races because of advertizing bans.

[darwin dali]

Regardless of the political debate, it will have a negative effect on F1, the three big industries that support F1 is alcohol, tobacco and oil/gas. It just ends up pushing F1 out of Europe, like any business, if a market is not profitable, you simply do your business elsewhere, so we end up with all races taking place in the UAE, Asia and the Americas. I remember not so long ago when 2/3 of the races took place in Europe, now its more like 1/3 of the races because of advertizing bans.

That's a stretch.

[myownalias]

Regardless of the political debate, it will have a negative effect on F1, the three big industries that support F1 is alcohol, tobacco and oil/gas. It just ends up pushing F1 out of Europe, like any business, if a market is not profitable, you simply do your business elsewhere, so we end up with all races taking place in the UAE, Asia and the Americas. I remember not so long ago when 2/3 of the races took place in Europe, now its more like 1/3 of the races because of advertizing bans.

That's a stretch.

I don't believe so, the tobacco advertizing ban was put in place and suddenly we have half dozen races in the UAE and Asia.