To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

Formula One Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Formula One Group
Formula One Constructors Association
Group of companies
FounderBernie Ecclestone
Area served
Key people
BrandsFormula 1
OwnerLiberty Media
SubsidiariesFormula One Promotions and Administration
Formula One Management Edit this on Wikidata

The Formula One Group is a group of companies responsible for the promotion of the FIA Formula One World Championship, and the exercising of the sport's commercial rights.[1]

The Group was previously owned by Delta Topco, a Jersey-based company owned primarily by investment companies CVC Capital Partners, Waddell & Reed, and LBI Group, with the remaining ownership split between Bernie Ecclestone, other investment companies, and company directors. It has subsequently been bought out by Liberty Media.[2]

Ecclestone, a former Formula One team boss, spent 40 years as chief executive of the company after gaining control of the commercial rights. As of February 2019, the Group is run by Chase Carey as Chairman and Chief Executive, with Ross Brawn serving as Managing Director, Motor Sports; and Sean Bratches serving as Managing Director, Commercial Operations. Ecclestone serves as Chairman Emeritus.[3]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/1
    973 535
  • ✪ Euler's formula with introductory group theory


two years ago, almost to the day actually I've put up the first video on this channel about Euler's formula e^(pi i) = -1 as an anniversary of sorts, I want to revisit that same idea for one thing, I always kindda wanted to improve on the presentation but I wouldn't rehash an old topic if there wasn't something new teach you see, the idea underlying that video was to take certain concepts from a field of maths group theory and show how to give Euler's formula a much richer interpretation than a mere association between numbers and, two years ago, I thought it might be fun to use those ideas without referencing group theory itself or any of the technical terms within it but, I've come to see that you all actually quite like getting into the maths itself even if it takes some time so here, two years later lets you and me go through an introduction to the basics of group theory delving up into how Euler's formula comes to life under this light if all you want is a quick explanation of Euler's formula and you're comfortable with vector calculus I'll go ahead and put up a particularly short explanation on the screen, that you can pause and ponder on if it doesn't make sense, don't worry about it, it's not needed for where we're going the reason I wanted to put out this group theory video though, is not because I think it's a better explaination hack, it's not even a complete proof, it's just an intuition really it's because it has the chance to change how you think about numbers, and how you think about algebra you see group theory is all about studying the nature of symmetry of example, a square is a very symmetric shape but what do we actually mean by that? one way to answer that is to ask about "What are all the actions you can take on the square that leaves it looking indistinguishable from how it started?" for example, you could rotate it 90° counter-clockwise, and it looks totally the same to how it started you could also flip it around this vertical line, and again, it still looks identical in fact, the thing about such perfect symmetry is that it's hard to keep track of what actions had actually been taken so to help out, I'm going to go ahead and stick on asymmetry image here and we call each one of these actions a symmetry of the square and all of the symmetries together make up a group of symmetries, or just "group" for short this particular group consists of eight symmetries there's the action of doing nothing, which is one that we count plus three different rotations and then there's four ways that you can flip it over and in fact this group of right symmetries has a special name it's called the dihedral group of order right and that an example of a finite group, consisting of only eight actions bit a lot of other groups consists of infinitely many actions think of all the possible rotations, for example, of any angle maybe you think of this as a group that acts of a circle, capturing all of the symmetries of that circle, that don't involve flipping it here, every action from this group of rotation lies somewhere on the infinite continuum between 0 and 2pi radians one nice aspect of these actions is that we can associate each one of them with a single point on the circle itself, the thing being acted on you start by choosing some arbitrary point, maybe the one on the right here then every circle symmetry. every possible rotation, takes this marked point to some unique spot on the circle and the action itself is completely determined by where it takes that spot now this doesn't always happen with groups but it's nice when it does happen, cause it gives us a way to label the actions themselves which can otherwise be pretty trick to think about the study of groups is not just about what a particular set of symmetry is whether that's the eight symmetries of a square, the infinite continuum of symmetries of a circle, or anything else you dream of the real heart and soul of this study is knowing how these symmetries play with each other on the square, if I rotate 90°, and then flip around the vertical axis the overall effect is the same as if I had just slipped over this diagonal line so in some sense, that rotation plus the vertical flip equals that diagonal flip on the circle, if I rotate 270°, and then follow it with and rotation of 120° the overall effect is the same as if I had just rotated 30° to start with so, in the circle group, a 270° rotation plus a 120° rotation equals an 30° rotation and in general, with any group, any collection of these sorts of symmetric actions there's a kind of arithmetic. where you can always take two actions and add them together to get a third one, by applying one after the other or, maybe you can think of it as multiplying actions, it doesn't really matter the point is there's some way to combine the two actions to get out another one that collection of underlying relations all associations between pairs of actions, and the single action that's equivalent to applying one after the other that's really what makes a group, "a group" it's actually crazy how much of modern maths is rooted in, well, this in understanding how a collection of actions is organized by this relation this relation between pairs of actions, and the single action you get by composing them groups are extremely general a lot of different ideas came be framed in terms of symmetries and composing symmetries and maybe the most familiar example is numbers, just ordinary numbers and there are actually two separate ways to think about numbers as a group one, where composing actions is going to look like addition, and another, where composing actions will look like multiplication it's a little weird, because we don't usually think of numbers as actions, we usually think of them as counting things but let me show you what I mean think of all of the ways you could slide a number line left or right along itself this collection of all sliding actions is a group, where you might think of as the group of symmetries on an infinite line and in the same way that actions from the circle group can be associated with individual points on that circle this is another one of those special groups where we can associate each action with a unique point on the thing that it's actually acting on you just follow where the point that starts at zero ends up for example, the number three is associated with the action of sliding right by three units the number negative two is associated with the action of sliding two units to the left since that's the unique action that drags the point at zero over to the point at negative two the number zero itself? well, that's associated with the action of doing nothing this group of sliding actions, each one of which is associated with a unique real number, has a special name the additive group of real numbers the reason the word additive is in there, is because of what the group operation of applying one action followed by another looks like if I slide right by three units, and then I slide right by two units the overall effect is the same as if I had slide right by three plus two, or five units simple enough, we're just adding the distance of each slide but the point here is that this gives an alternative view for what numbers even are they are one example in a much larger category of groups, groups of symmetry acting on some object and the arithmetic of adding numbers is just one example of the arithmetic that any group of symmetries has within it we could also extend this idea, instead asking about the sliding actions on the complex plane the newly introduced numbers: i, 2i, 3i, and so on, on this vertical line would all be associated with vertical sliding motions since those are the actions that drag the point at zero up to the relevant point on that vertical line the point over here, at 3 + 2i would be associated wth the action of sliding the plane in such a way that drags zero up into the right to that point and it should make sense why we call this 3 plus 2i that diagonal sliding action is the same as first sliding by three to the right and then following it with a slide that corresponds to 2i, which is two units vertically similarly, lets get a feel for how composing any two of these actions generally breaks down consider this slide by 3 + 2i action, as well as this slide by 1 - 3i action and imagine applying one of them right after the other the overall effect, the composition of these sliding actions is the same as if we had slid 3 + 1 to the right, and 2 - 3 vertically notice how that involves adding together each component so composing sliding actions is another way thinking about what adding complex numbers actually means this collection of all sliding actions on the 2D complex plane goes by the name the additive group of complex numbers again, the upshot here is that numbers, even complex numbers, are just one example of a group and the idea of addition can be thought of in terms of successively applying actions but numbers, schizophrenic as they are, also lead a completely differently, as a completely different kind of group consider a new group of actions on the number line always that you can stretch and squish it keeping everything evenly spaced, and keeping that number zero fixed in place yet again, this group of actions has that nice property where we can associate each action in the group with a specific point on the thing that it's acting on in this case, follow where the point that starts at the number one goes there is one and only one stretching action that brings that point at one to the point at three, for instance namely stretching by a factor of three likewise, there is one and only one action that brings that point at one to the point at one half namely squishing by a factor of one half I like to imagine using one hand to fix the number zero in place, and using the other to drag the number one wherever I like whilst the rest of number line just does whatever it takes to stay evenly spaced in this way, every single positive number is associated with a unique stretching or squishing action now, notice what composing actions looks like in this group if I apply this stretch by three action and then follow it with the stretch by 2 action, the overall effect is the same as if I had just applied the stretch by six action, the product of the two original numbers and in general, applying one of these actions, followed by another, corresponds with multiplying the numbers that they're associated with in fact, the name for this group is the multiplicative group of positive real numbers so, multiplication, ordinary familiar multiplication, is one more example of this very general and very far reaching idea of groups, and the arithmetic within groups and we can also extend this idea to the complex plane again, I'd like to think of fixing zero in place with one hand, and dragging around the point at one, keeping everything else evenly spaced while I do so but this time, as we drag the number one to places that are off the real number line we see that our group includes not only stretching and squishing actions, but actions that have some rotational component as well the quintessential example of this is the action associated with that point at i, one unit above zero what it takes to drag the point at one to that point at i, is a 90°rotation so, the multiplicative action associated with i is a 90° rotation and notice if I apply that action twice in a row, the overall effect is to [rotate] the plane 180° and that is the unique action that brings the point at one over to negative one so in this sense, i * i = -1 meaning the action associated with i, followed by that same action associated with i, has the same overall effect as the action associated with negative one as another example, here's the action associated with 2 + i, dragging one up to that point if you want, you can think of this as broken down as a rotation by 30°, followed by a stretch by a factor of √5 and in general, every one of these multiplicative actions is some combination of a stretch or a squish an action associated with some point on the positive real number line followed by a pure rotation, where pure rotations are associated with points on this circle, the one with radius one this is very similar to how the sliding actions in the additive group can be broken down as some pure horizontal slide represented by with points on the real number line plus some purely vertical slide, represented by points on that vertical line that comparison of how actions in each group breaks down is going to be important, so remember it in each one you can break down any action as some purely real number action, followed by something that's specifically complex numbers whether that's vertical slides for the additive group, or pure rotations for the multiplicative group so that's our quick introduction to the groups a group is a collection of symmetric actions on some mathematical object whether that's square, a circle, the real number line, or anything else you dream up and every group has a certain arithmetic, where you can combine two actions by applying one after the other and asking what other action from the group gives the same overall effect numbers, both real and complex numbers, can be thought of in two different ways as a group they can act by sliding, in which case the group arithmetic just looks like ordinary addition or they can act by these stretching, squishing, rotating actions in which case the group arithmetic looks just like multiplication and with that, let's talk about exponentiation out first introduction to exponents is to think of them in terms of repeated multiplication, right? I mean, the meaning of something like 2^3 is to take 2 * 2 * 2 and the meaning of something like 2^5, is 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 and a consequence of this, something you might call the exponential property is that if I add two numbers in the exponent, say 2^(3+5) this can be broken down as the product of 2^3 times 2^5 and when you expand things, this seems reasonable enough, right? but expressions like 2^½, or 2^-1, and much less 2^i don't really make sense when you think of exponents as repeated multiplication I mean, what does it mean to multiply two by itself half of a time, or negative one of a time so we do something very common throughout maths and extend beyond the original definition which only makes sense for counting numbers to something that applies to all sorts of numbers but we don't just do this randomly if you think back to how fractional and negative exponents are defined it's always motivated by trying to make sure that this property 2^(x+y) = 2^x * 2^y still holds to see what this might mean for complex exponents, think about what this property is saying from a group theory light it's saying that adding inputs corresponds with multiplying the outputs and it makes it very tempting to think of the inputs not merely as numbers, but as members of the additive group of sliding actions and to think of the outputs not merely as numbers, but as members of this multiplicative group of stretching and squishing actions now it is weird and strange about functions that take in one kind of action and spit out another kind of action but this is something that actually comes up all the time throughout group theory and this exponential property is very important for this association between groups it guarantees that if I compose two sliding actions, maybe a slide by negative one, and then slide by positive two it corresponds to composing the two output actions, in this case squishing by 2^-1, and then stretching by 2^2 mathematicians would describe a property like this by saying that a function preserves the group structure in the sense that the arithmetic within a group is what gives it its structure and a function like this exponential plays nicely with that arithmetic functions between groups that preserves the arithmetic like this are really important throughout group theory enough so they've earn themselves a nice fancy name "Homomorphism" now, think about what all of this means for associating the additive group in the complex plane with the multiplicative group in the complex plane we already know that when you plug in a real number to 2^x you get out a real number a positive real number, in fact so this exponential function takes any purely horizontal slide and turns it into some pure stretching or squishing action so, wouldn't you agree that it would be reasonable for this new dimension of additive actions, slides up and down to map directly into this new dimension of multiplicative actions, pure rotations? those vertical sliding actions correspond to points on this vertical axis and those rotating multiplicative actions correspond to points on the circle with radius one so what would it mean for an exponential function like 2^x to map purely vertical slides into pure rotatios would be that complex numbers on this vertical line multiples of i, get mapped to complex numbers on this unit circle in fact, for the function 2^x, the input i, a vertical slide of one unit, happens to map to a rotation of about 0.693 radians that is a walk around the unit circle that covers 0.693 units of distance with a different exponential function, say 5^x, that input i, a vertical slide of one unit, would map to a rotation of about 1.609 radians a walk around the unit circle, covering exactly 1.609 units of distance what makes the number e special is that when the exponential e^x map vertical slides to rotations a vertical slide of one unit, corresponding to i, maps to a rotation of exactly one radian, a walk around the unit circle covering a distance of exactly one and so a vertical slide of two units would map to a rotation of two radians a three unit slide up corresponds to a rotation of three radians and a vertical slide of exactly pi units up, corresponding to the input pi * i maps to a rotation of exactly pi radians, half way around the circle and that's the multiplicative action associated with the number negative one now you might ask "Why e? Why not some other base?" well, the full answer resides in calculus I mean, that's the birthplace of e, and where it's even defined again, I'll leave up another explanation on the screen if you're hungry for a fuller description, and if you're comfortable with the calculus but at a higher level, I'll say that it has to do with the fact that all exponential functions are proportional to their own derivative but e^x alone is the one that's actually equal to its own derivative the important point that I want to make here though, is that if you view things from the lens of group theory thinking of the inputs to an exponential function as sliding actions, and thinking of the outputs as stretching and rotating actions it gives a very vivid way to read what formula like this is even saying when you read it, you can think that exponentials in general map purely vertical slides, the additive actions that are perpendicular to the real number line into pure rotations, which are in some sense perpendicular to the real number stretching actions and more over, e^x does this in a very special way, that ensures that a vertical slide of pi units corresponds to rotation of exactly pi radians the 180° rotation associated with a number -1 to finish things off here, I want to show a way you can think about this function e^x as a transformation of the complex plane but before that, just two quick messages I've mentioned before how thankful I am to you, the community for making these videos possible through patreon but, in much the same way that numbers become more meaningful when you think of them as actions gratitude is also best expressed as an action so, I've decided to turn off ads on new videos for their first month in the hopes of giving you all a better viewing experience this video was sponsored by Emerald Cloud Lab and actually I was the one to reach out to them, since it's a company I find particularly inspiring Emerald is a very unusual startup, half software half bio-tech the Cloud Lab that they're building is essentially enables biologists and chemists to conduct research through a software platform instead of working in a lab scientists can program experiments which are then executed remotely and robotically in Emerald's industrialised research lab cuuI know some of the people in the company and the software challenges they're working on are really interesting currently, they're looking to hiring software engineers and web developers for their engineering team as well as applied mathematicians and computer scientists for their scientific computing team if you're interested in applying, whether that's now or a few months from now there are a couple special link in the description of this video, and if you apply through those it lets Emerald know you heard about them through this channel alright, so e^x transforming the plane I'd like to imagine first rolling that plane into a cylinder, wrapping all those vertical lines into circles and then taking that cylinder and kindda smooshing it onto the plane around zero where each of those concentric circles spaced out exponentially correspond with what started off as vertical lines [cc first draft by Geoffrey Yeung]



In 1974, the Formula One Constructors Association (FOCA) was founded in order to increase commercial organisation of Formula One for the benefit of the racing teams. In 1978, Bernie Ecclestone became the executive of FOCA, and fought the Fédération Internationale du Sport Automobile (FISA) for control of the commercial rights of F1. Disputes were settled by March 1981 when the Concorde Agreement gave FOCA the right to negotiate TV contracts. Under previous arrangements, TV contracts were not very lucrative and were risky.[4]

When the second Concorde Agreement was agreed in 1987, Ecclestone ceased being a team owner and established the Formula One Promotions and Administration (FOPA) to manage TV rights for the teams. FOPA would later become known as Formula One Management (FOM). FOPA received 49% of TV revenues: 1% went to the teams, and 50% to the FIA. FOPA also received all the fees paid by promoters and paid prize money to the teams. The third Concorde Agreement was signed in 1992.

When the fourth Concorde Agreement was signed in 1995, the FIA decided to grant the commercial rights of F1 to Formula One Administration (managed by FOM) for a 14-year period. In exchange, Ecclestone would provide an annual payment. With FOM having exclusive rights to popular team names like Team McLaren, WilliamsF1, and Tyrrell Formula One, the aforementioned teams protested by rejecting the following Concorde Agreement in 1997. A compromise was reached and a new Concorde Agreement was signed by all teams in 1998.

Team McLaren, WilliamsF1, Scuderia Ferrari and Renault F1 formed GPWC Holdings, and threatened to form a rival racing franchise in 2008 when their contracts ended in 2007.

Ecclestone sells shares of F1

SLEC Holdings was created as the holding company of the Formula One companies in 1996 when Ecclestone transferred his ownership of Formula One businesses to his wife, Slavica Ecclestone, in preparation for a 1997 flotation of the group.[5]

In October 1999, Morgan Grenfell Private Equity (MGPE) acquired 12.5% of SLEC for £234 million.[6] In February 2000, Hellman and Friedman purchased a 37.5% share of SLEC for £625 million, and combined its share with that of MGPE to form Speed Investments, which had a combined holding of 50% of SLEC.[6][7] On 22 March 2000, German media company EM.TV & Merchandising purchased Speed Investments for £1.1 billion.[8]

EM.TV's acquisitions caused it financial difficulties; following its announcement that its 2000 earnings would be below expectations and it was struggling with its debts, the share price dropped 90%.[9] In February, the Kirch Group agreed to rescue EM.TV in return for a stake in the company and control of Speed Investments.[7] Alan Henry of The Guardian reported that the two companies also agreed to exercise EM.TV's option to purchase another 25% of SLEC for approximately £600 million in late-March 2001.[10] To raise Speed Investments' share of SLEC to 75% Kirch borrowed €1.6 billion, €1 billion from Bayerische Landesbank (BayernLB) and the rest from Lehman Brothers and JPMorgan Chase.[11] Kirch's involvement raised concerns among the major automobile manufacturers who participate in Formula One; BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Fiat, Ford, and Renault formed GPWC Holding BV to secure better representation of the manufacturers in F1, improved financial conditions for the teams, stability for the championship, and maintenance of free-to-air television coverage.[11]

Due to the agreement associated with their shareholding, SLEC was controlled by Kirch, who controlled the board of Formula One Holdings (FOH). Due to huge losses and massive expenditure, Kirch's creditors put the company into receivership in 2002. These banks dismantled the group. Kirch's share of SLEC was retained by Bayerische Landesbank (BayernLB), JPMorgan Chase and Lehman Brothers (through Speed Investments).

Before they could exercise their rights as shareholders, they had to seek clearance from the European Commission. In the intervening period, Ecclestone instituted changes in the boards of SLEC, FOH, Formula One Administration (FOA) and Formula One Management (FOM); which in effect put Bambino Holdings in control of those companies.

In mid-November 2004, the three banks sued Ecclestone for more control over the sport, prompting speculation that Ecclestone might altogether lose the control he has maintained for then more than thirty years. A two-day court hearing began on 23 November, but after the proceedings had ended the following day, Justice Andrew Park announced his intention to reserve ruling for several weeks. On 6 December 2004, Park read his verdict, stating that "In [his] judgment it is clear that Speed's contentions are correct and [he] should therefore make the declarations which it requests".[12] However, Ecclestone insisted that the verdict - seen almost universally as a legal blow to his control of Formula One - would mean "nothing at all". He stated his intention to appeal the decision.[13]

The following day, at a meeting of team bosses at Heathrow Airport, Ecclestone offered the teams a total of £260 million over three years in return for unanimous renewal of the Concorde Agreement, which was due to expire in 2008.[14] Weeks later, Gerhard Gibkowsky, a board member of Bayerische Landesbank and the chairman of SLEC, stated that the banks had no intention to remove Ecclestone from his position of control.[15]

CVC acquisition

In November 2005, CVC Capital Partners announced it was to acquire the 25% and 48% shares of Bambino and Bayerische Landesbank in SLEC, and acquired the shares of JPMorgan Chase in December 2005. This deal was given approval by the European Commission on 21 March 2006 and finalised on 28 March.[16][17][18][19][20] Ecclestone used the proceeds of the sale of Bambino Holdings' share to reinvest in the company to give the Ecclestone family a 13.8% stake in the holding company Alpha Prema.[21][22] On 30 March 2006, CVC purchased the 14.1% share of SLEC held by Lehman Brothers to give CVC a majority ownership in the Formula One Group with 63.4%,[22] with other shareholdings owned by LBI Group, JP Morgan, and company directors.[23]

The Formula One Group planned an initial public offering on the Singapore Stock Exchange in June 2012, valuing the company at $10 billion.[24] Up to 30% of the company would be listed, with most of the stock coming from the shareholding owned by the creditors of the bankrupt Lehman Brothers.[24] However, the flotation was delayed until October 2012, with Ecclestone citing volatile markets and problems in the Eurozone.[25] CVC sold part of its stake in the company to three investment companies: Waddell & Reed, BlackRock and Norges Bank; reducing its holding to 35.5%, and making Waddell & Reed the second-biggest shareholder.[26] The planned flotation was kept on hold throughout 2012,[26] until it was revived in April 2013 when Ecclestone announced it would take place within the year.[27]

Liberty acquisition

In late 2016, Liberty Media agreed to buy controlling interest in the Formula One Group for $4.4 billion (£3.3 billion).[28] The deal was approved by regulators and completed on 23 January 2017.[2] Chase Carey subsequently became chief executive of the Group.

The Formula One Group is listed in the NASDAQ as a tracking stock under the ticker FWONK.[29]

Group companies

The Formula One Group was controlled by its shareholders through the Delta Topco holding company,[30][31] which through a number of holding companies registered in the United Kingdom, Jersey and Luxembourg; controls the SLEC Holdings company, the Formula One Group's immediate owner.[32] The Formula One Group comprises several subsidiary companies which control the various rights, management, and licensing operations of the Formula One World Championship.[33]

The commercial rights of Formula One are controlled by Formula One World Championship Limited (FOWC), which received the rights to Formula One for a period of 100 years from the FIA.[32][34] Formula One World Championship's control of the rights began from the beginning of 2011,[32] where it took over from sister company Formula One Administration (FOA), which controlled the rights for a 14-year period beginning in 1996.[33] FOWC, as the commercial rights holder, negotiates the contracts for holding F1 Grands Prix, organising television contracts with broadcasters, and receiving licensing fees for use of Formula One material. The company also has a seat on the FIA World Motor Sport Council, the body responsible for regulating international motorsport.[35] Formula One Licensing BV is a related Dutch registered company of the Formula One Group which claims ownership of the trademarks of Formula One; the F1 logo, "Formula 1", "Formula One", "F1" and the "Sweeping Curves device" shown before Grands Prix.[36]

Formula One Management (FOM) is the main operating company of the group,[37] and controls the broadcasting, organisation and promotional rights of Formula One.[38] The company makes the televised feeds of all Grand Prix sessions, which are then supplied through the Eurovision satellites network (EBU) to broadcasters who provide commentary and distribute the feed in the authorised region(s) of said broadcasters. The production arm of FOM is based at Biggin Hill Airport, Kent, for easy travel of the equipment needed to broadcast the race.[39] Financially, FOM provides partial investment for new tracks and teams, to allow them to establish themselves in the sport and grow Formula One's presence in new markets.[37][40] The season calendar for the championship is structured by FOM, with the WMSC having oversight. Payments to the teams are determined by the Concorde Agreement, which gives the teams 50% of the television money in Constructors' Championship order, and awards a prize fund to teams based upon their results, which is drawn from the fees Grand Prix promoters pay for staging the race.[37][38] The logistics of moving equipment and personnel from each race is also handled by FOM, which provides the teams with a set amount of transport for the races outside of Europe.[38]


As of April 2018, the senior management of the company are:

Related companies

The Formula One Group is used to refer to several related companies, which although not part of the Group, are controlled by the Delta Topco holding company, and have business related to Formula One. GP2 Motorsport Ltd was acquired by CVC in 2007, with its ownership controlled by Formula One's holding companies.[31][41] GP2 runs the FIA Formula 2 Championship, which is Formula One's main feeder series, and runs races at the European rounds of the F1 championship, in order to give drivers experience and exposure to Formula One teams. The FIA Formula 3 Championship, the next single-seater level down from Formula 2, is also controlled by GP2 Motorsport. The Formula One Group also owns Istanbul Park AS, which runs the Istanbul Park racing circuit, the former host to the Turkish Grand Prix.[42] The Formula One Group also owns the rights to the "GP1" name.

Allsport Management SA is a Swiss registered company which manages the sale of almost all Formula One trackside advertising, and the Formula One Paddock Club. Allsport Management was founded by Paddy McNally, who had begun to work with Bernie Ecclestone in the late 1970s. McNally, who was a former Marlboro sponsorship consultant, came up with a solution to "tidy up" trackside advertising; this solution was called "themed advertising", where one advertiser is given total exposure at one part of the track.[43] This is in contrast to the Monaco Grand Prix, the only grand prix where Allsport is not involved; where space is sold such that multiple advertisers are visible in every picture.[43] The Paddock Club is Formula One's corporate hospitality organisation, which provides a luxury area for VIP's and sponsors for the Grand Prix weekend, and also gives access to teams and drivers and tours of the pits.[43] In 2006, Allsport Management (and the related Allsopp Parker & Marsh companies) were acquired by CVC through Delta Topco,[44] meaning that the sport's complete revenues are controlled by the Formula One Group.[31][45]

World Feed races

In July 1996, FOM started F1 Digital (later known as F1 Digital+) because then the world feed were produced by a 'host broadcaster' from each nation produced the World Feed for their home race, for example TF1 for the French Grand Prix. This led to a two-tier system which was unpopular with viewers due to local broadcasters focusing heavily on local teams and drivers, whilst missing key moments. So, it was used in Germany (by DF1), France (by Canal+), Italy (by TELE+) and United Kingdom (by BSkyB). FOM and F1 Digital+ produced the world feeds of the Brazilian Grand Prix's from 1997 to 1999 and the 2002 United States Grand Prix. F1 Digital+ was axed in December 2002 and most of the design featured by FOM in the world feed from 2004.

FOM produced the world feed for four races in 2004: the Australian, Bahrain, Malaysian and Chinese Grand Prix's. In 2005, they added the Canadian, United States and Turkish Grand Prix's to the world feed. In 2006 only the Bahrain, Malaysian, Australian, Canadian, United States, Turkish and Chinese Grand Prix's were produced by FOM on the world feed. The world feed, produced by FOM had the Spanish, French, British, Hungarian, Italian and Belgian Grand Prix's in 2007. In 2008, The United States Grand Prix was not on the calendar but they added the German, European, Singapore Grand Prix and Brazilian Grand Prix's to the world feed. The world feed, produced by FOM added the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix in 2009 but the Canadian Grand Prix was not on the calendar. In 2010, The Canadian and Korean Grand Prix's went on the world feed. The world feed, produced by FOM added the Indian Grand Prix in 2011 but the Bahrain Grand Prix was cancelled by the FIA. The world feed, produced by FOM added the Bahrain, Japanese and United States Grand Prix's in 2012 but the Turkish Grand Prix was not on the schedule.


Grand Prix Circuit Year
United Arab Emirates Abu Dhabi Grand Prix Yas Marina Circuit 2009
Australia Australian Grand Prix Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit 2004
Austria Austrian Grand Prix Red Bull Ring 2014
Azerbaijan Azerbaijan Grand Prix Baku City Circuit 2017
Bahrain Bahrain Grand Prix Bahrain International Circuit 20042010, 2012
Belgium Belgian Grand Prix Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps 2007
Brazil Brazilian Grand Prix Autódromo José Carlos Pace 19971999, 2008
United Kingdom British Grand Prix Silverstone Circuit 2007
Canada Canadian Grand Prix Circuit Gilles Villeneuve 20052008, 2010
China Chinese Grand Prix Shanghai International Circuit 2004
Europe European Grand Prix Nürburgring 2007
Valencia Street Circuit 20082012
Baku City Circuit 2016
France French Grand Prix Circuit de Nevers Magny-Cours 20072008
Circuit Paul Ricard 2018
Germany German Grand Prix Hockenheimring 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016
Nürburgring 2009, 2011, 2013
Hungary Hungarian Grand Prix Hungaroring 2007
India Indian Grand Prix Buddh International Circuit 20112013
Italy Italian Grand Prix Autodromo Nazionale Monza 2007
Japan Japanese Grand Prix Suzuka Circuit 2012
South Korea Korean Grand Prix Korea International Circuit 20102013
Malaysia Malaysian Grand Prix Sepang International Circuit 20042017
Mexico Mexican Grand Prix Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez 2015
Russia Russian Grand Prix Sochi Autodrom 2014
Spain Spanish Grand Prix Circuit de Catalunya 2007
Singapore Singapore Grand Prix Marina Bay Street Circuit 2008
Turkey Turkish Grand Prix Istanbul Park 20052011
United States United States Grand Prix Indianapolis 2002, 20052007
Circuit of the Americas 2012

Scheduling with MotoGP

A gentlemen's agreement has allegedly existed for some time between Dorna CEO Carmelo Ezpeleta and Bernie Ecclestone to do what is necessary to avoid a direct TV conflict between F1 and MotoGP. At schedule-making time there is consultation between the two sides, but, in general, when F1 makes a change creating a conflict with a MotoGP date, MotoGP responds by changing dates.


  1. ^ "Merger Procedure Article 6(1)(b) Decision" (PDF). European Commission. 20 March 2006. Retrieved 20 February 2011.
  2. ^ a b "Bernie Ecclestone removed as Liberty Media completes $8bn takeover". BBC Sport. 23 January 2017. Retrieved 23 January 2017.
  3. ^ "Ross Brawn lands key role in new-look F1 structure". Retrieved 24 January 2017.
  4. ^ Buckton, Christopher. "As he faces ransom demands from mother-in-law's abductors, who is Bernie Ecclestone?". Retrieved 5 December 2016.
  5. ^ Griffiths, John; Harris, Clay; Harverson, Patrick (7 June 1997). "Ecclestone juggles ahead of flotation; Complex asset deals leave wife with control of up to 40 per cent of motor racing empire". Financial Times.
  6. ^ a b Steiner, Rupert (20 February 2000). "Ecclestone sells £625m F1 stake". Sunday Times. Times Newspapers.
  7. ^ a b "The end of Kirch..." 13 June 2002. Retrieved 20 October 2010.
  8. ^ "Muppet owners buy Formula One". BBC. BBC News. 22 March 2000. Retrieved 20 February 2011.
  9. ^ "EM.TC Rescue Package Agreed". The Scotsman. 16 February 2001.
  10. ^ Henry, Alan (5 April 2001). "Formula One faces rebellion from car makers". The Guardian.
  11. ^ a b Hientzsch, Heike (28 September 2002). "What do Formula One's owners want?; The banks who are stakeholders must reach a pact with the teams for good of the sport, says Heike Hientzsch". The Business Times Singapore. Singapore Press Holdings.
  12. ^ "Legal blow for Ecclestone". ITV plc. 6 December 2004. Archived from the original on 7 December 2004. Retrieved 20 February 2011.
  13. ^ "Bernie Defiant". ITV plc. 6 December 2004. Archived from the original on 7 December 2004. Retrieved 20 February 2011.
  14. ^ "Bernie offers £260m payday". ITV plc. 7 December 2004. Archived from the original on 7 December 2004. Retrieved 19 February 2011.
  15. ^ "Ecclestone to remain in charge". ITV plc. 24 December 2004. Archived from the original on 24 December 2004. Retrieved 20 February 2011.
  16. ^ "Case No COMP/M.4066 - CVC / SLEC" (PDF). REGULATION (EC) No 139/2004 MERGER PROCEDURE: Article 6(2) NON-OPPOSITION. The European Commission (In electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4066). 20 March 2006. Retrieved 13 June 2019.
  17. ^ "Mergers: Commission clears planned acquisition of Formula One owner SLEC by CVC, subject to conditions" (PDF). Press Release IP/06/342. The European Commission. 21 March 2006. Retrieved 13 June 2019.
  18. ^ Noble, Jonathan (21 March 2006). "CVC gets EU approval; must sell MotoGP". Autosport. Haymarket Publications. Retrieved 13 June 2019.
  19. ^ "CVC completes F1 acquisition". Autosport. Haymarket Publications. 28 March 2006. Retrieved 13 June 2019.
  20. ^ Olson, Parmy (28 March 2006). "CVC Gets Into Gear With Ecclestone's F1 Stake". Forbes Magazine. Retrieved 13 June 2019.
  21. ^ "CVC confirms F1 buy-out". ITV plc. 29 March 2006. Archived from the original on 11 March 2007. Retrieved 20 February 2011.
  22. ^ a b Sylt, Christian; Reid, Caroline (31 October 2010). "Ecclestone backtracks over F1 flotation". Financial Times. Retrieved 29 April 2013.
  23. ^ Saward, Joe (24 May 2012). "The reality… as was". Joe Saward's Grand Prix blog. Retrieved 29 April 2013.
  24. ^ a b "F1 flotation boosted by £4.4bn 'guarantee'". Daily Telegraph. 28 April 2012. Retrieved 29 April 2013.
  25. ^ Neville, Simon (31 May 2012). "Bernie Ecclestone signals delay to F1 flotation as another Asian IPO fails". The Guardian. Retrieved 29 April 2013.
  26. ^ a b Blitz, Roger (20 July 2012). "Formula One left floating as IPO on hold". Financial Times. Retrieved 29 April 2013.
  27. ^ Sylt, Christian (28 April 2013). "F1 shakes up prize money and prepares for £6.5bn float". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 29 April 2013.
  28. ^ "US media firm Liberty Media to buy Formula 1". 7 September 2016.
  29. ^ Exclusive: Formula One Group Doesn't Own F1's Commercial Rights - Christian Sylt, Forbes, 29 January 2017
  30. ^ Sylt, Christian; Reid, Caroline (5 August 2007). "F1 debt is $3bn but returns are so good, hedge funds want in". The Independent. Independent Print. Retrieved 11 June 2011.
  31. ^ a b c Saward, Joe (6 April 2011). "News Corporation and Exor bid for F1". Joe Saward's Grand Prix Blog. Retrieved 11 June 2011.
  32. ^ a b c Saward, Joe (3 May 2011). "Some numbers from the F1 world". Joe Sawards Grand Prix Blog. Retrieved 11 June 2011.
  33. ^ a b "Bernie restructures". 17 March 1997. Retrieved 11 May 2011.
  34. ^ "F1 commits to terrestrial TV". BBC Sport. BBC. 25 April 2001. Retrieved 12 June 2011.
  35. ^ "World Motor Sport Council". Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile. Archived from the original on 3 October 2011. Retrieved 11 June 2011. Cite uses deprecated parameter |deadurl= (help)
  36. ^ "Legal Notices". Formula One World Championship. Retrieved 29 April 2013.
  37. ^ a b c "Bernie's company reshuffle". Retrieved 11 June 2011.
  38. ^ a b c "Grand prix, grand prizes". The Economist. 13 July 2000. Retrieved 12 June 2011.
  39. ^ "Companies at Biggin Hill". Biggin Hill Airport. Retrieved 11 June 2011.
  40. ^ Straw, Edd (30 April 2009). "New teams to get financial support". Haymarket Publications. Retrieved 10 June 2011.
  41. ^ Reid, Caroline; Sylt, Christian (19 October 2007). "CVC takes wheel with GP2". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 29 October 2007.
  42. ^ "It is not just a dog's life". 13 May 2008. Retrieved 12 June 2011.
  43. ^ a b c Saward, Joe (4 January 2000). "The Paddock Club". Retrieved 18 October 2006.
  44. ^ "Formula One acquires APM and Allsport Management" (PDF) (Press release). CVC Capital Partners. 31 March 2006. Retrieved 18 October 2006.
  45. ^ "CVC buys Allsport". 1 April 2006. Retrieved 18 October 2006.
This page was last edited on 6 September 2019, at 06:02
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.