Reverse Grids vs. Budget Cap Reform: Which route is best for the future of F1?

 Abstract

This paper examines the regulatory precedent and legal framework of the FIA’s cost cap in Formula 1, evaluates the plausibility and correctness of introducing a rule excluding incident-related costs from the cap, and contrasts this with the implications of the proposed reverse grids for Sprint races from 2027. Drawing on previously enforced Financial Regulations (teams and power unit manufacturers), “accepted breach” cases, exclusions under the cost cap, and statements from stakeholders, it argues that the exclusion of costs from accidents can be designed coherently within existing legal frameworks and may offer a more sustainable reform than reverse grids, which pose risks to competitive integrity and contractual expectations.

1. Regulatory Precedents in FIA Financial Regulations

1.1 The Structure of the Cost Cap & Relevant / Excluded Costs

• The FIA Financial Regulations define Relevant Costs as those spent on performance-related activities (design, development, manufacturing, race operations, etc.). Costs not tied to performance are excluded.
• Excluded Costs (article 5.1 of the FIA Financial Regulations) specifically include: marketing costs; driver salaries; salaries of the three highest-paid non-driver personnel; travel/accommodation for drivers; corporate taxes; non-F1 activities etc.[1]

Thus, there is already a well-established legal doctrine in the regulations for separating ordinary cost items from those that are excluded.

1.2 Case Law: Accepted Breach Agreements & Procedural Breaches

• In Red Bull’s 2021 Cost Cap breach, the team was found to have understated “Relevant Costs” or mis-excluded costs (e.g., catering, bonuses, non-F1 activity costs) in their reporting. They exceeded the cap by ~£1.86 million, less than 5% (a “Minor Overspend Breach”).
• More recently, Alpine and Honda were found in 2023 to have procedural breaches of the Power Unit Financial Regulations, failing to include or accurately certify certain costs / submitting deficient documentation. Importantly, they were still under the cap, suggesting that non-overspending breaches are enforceable and meaningful.

These precedents show that FIA already enforces detailed financial reporting, applies strict auditing, and enacts sanctions even when cap is not exceeded, but reporting is wrong.

2. Comparative Legal Anatomy: Reverse Grids & Contractual / Sporting Integrity

• Drivers like Oscar Piastri have publicly objected to reverse grids on fairness grounds: “Reverse grids … diminish the sporting element … things being decided because of reverse grid races … the last thing we want as a sport.”[2]
• Reverse grids are more common in junior categories (F2, F3), where the goal includes driver development and varied track experience; the regulatory, commercial, and safety stakes are lower. In F1, given the large financial, contractual, and sponsor implications, altering starting positions artificially could lead to disputes over contracts, expectations, and possibly force majeure or fairness claims.

3. Feasibility of Incident-Cost Exclusion: Legal Design Suggestions

Given existing regulations and precedents, excluding incident costs (repairs / parts / rebuild from crashes not attributable to the team) is feasible, provided certain design elements are included:

Element	Why Needed	Precedent / Analogous Regulatory Practice
Clear Definition of “Incident” and Fault Attribution	To avoid arbitrary or window-dressing exclusions; to determine when costs are “not the fault of the team.”	FIA stewards decisions are used currently to attribute fault in sporting regulations.
Inclusion of Accident-Derived Costs in Reporting Documentation	To ensure transparency and avoid misclassification.	The Red Bull 2021 breach showed costs incorrectly excluded under “Excluded Costs” (e.g. catering, bonuses).
Audit & Oversight Mechanism	Prevent abuses; ensure consistent application across teams.	The Cost Cap Administration (CCA) does periodic review;this can ensure fairness in application.
Cap on Excluded Incident Costs	To prevent excluding large costs that could otherwise give a competitive financial advantage (e.g. teams taking large risks).	Financial Regulations already limit distortions via specific rules and costs definitions.

 

4. Potential Legal / Contractual Risks & Mitigations

Risk	Description	Mitigation Mechanism
Contractual Disputes with Sponsors	Sponsors who invest based on expected exposure (e.g. qualifying positions, TV time, etc.) may claim reverse grids distort what was promised.	Maintain stable contractual frameworks; provide opt-ins clauses; allow reverse grid events to have reduced points or different valuation.
Complexity and Litigation	Disagreements over fault; over what counts as “incident-cost”; how to apportion shared fault.	Use FIA stewards’ rulings; establish an independent appeals panel; codify definitions in regulations.

 

5. Why the Incident Cost Exclusion Proposal Risks Less Distortion than Reverse Grids

• Meritocracy preserved: Performance in qualifying, engineering, race strategy remain central. Excluding incident costs only affects financial fairness, not sporting merit.
• Contractual predictability: Teams and sponsors can build budgets knowing they will not be ruined by a crash (especially when not at fault). Reverse grids make starting order uncertain and may reduce value of qualifying results.
• Legal coherence: The regulatory framework already uses exclusions, definitions, auditing, and sanctions. An incident exclusion could be integrated without reinventing anything.

 

6. Conclusion & Policy Recommendations

• The exclusion of incident-derived costs from the budget cap, as proposed, aligns with existing regulatory architecture and case law in FIA’s financial enforcement.
• To implement it correctly, it is essential to codify what counts as an incident, define fault, ensure rigorous auditing, apply caps or thresholds to avoid misuse, and link to stewards’ decisions.
• Reverse grids, by contrast, raise more profound legal, contractual, and sporting integrity issues. While they may increase spectacle, they do so by introducing a distortion of merit and possibly exposing the sport to disputes.

 

---

[1] F1 Financial Regulations.

[2] https://www.racefans.net/2025/09/18/reverse-grids-are-a-bad-idea-and-the-last-thing-we-want-as-a-sport-piastri/