55
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
55 points (95.1% liked)
Formula 1
9077 readers
19 users here now
Welcome to Formula1 @ Lemmy.world Lemmy's largest community for Formula 1 and related racing series
Rules
- Be respectful to everyone; drivers, lemmings, redditors etc
- No gambling, crypto or NFTs
- Spoilers are allowed
- Non English articles should include a translation in the comments by deepl.com or similar
- Paywalled articles should include at least a brief summary in the comments, the wording of the article should not be altered
- Social media posts should be posted as screenshots with a link for those who want to view it
- Memes are allowed on Monday only as we all do like a laugh or 2, but don’t want to become formuladank.
Up next
2024 Calendar
| Location | Date |
|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 United States | 21-23 Nov |
| 🇶🇦 Qatar | 29 Nov-01 Dec |
| 🇦🇪 Abu Dhabi | 06-08 Dec |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
As the article explains, Congressmen invoked the Sherman Act. That has to do with competitive markets. congress has the authority to make laws and make sure they are followed in interstate commerce, which F1 falls under. So, they are doing their job.
The NFL doesn't allow competition from teams from plenty of countries. Should those countries be able to sue the NFL on that basis, saying it's anti-competitive?
If your opinion on the above is "no", could you then explain what merits this double standard?
There seems to be an element of US exceptionalism here. The US does not get to impose management terms on foreign sporting organisations, except for the events that take place within their borders.
The NFL, MLB, and whatever US based sports leagues actually have exceptions to the Sherman antitrust act. F1 does not have this, but are owned by a US based, publicly traded company, and are this is subject to US law, including the Sherman antitrust act.
They have those clauses in the US, not the UK. So based on your logic the UK should be able to tell the NFL what they can/can't do regardless of US law.
You're arguing both ways. That the UK can't impose terms on the NFL because it's under US law, but that the US can impose terms on FOM despite being under UK law.
Incorrect. FOM is a UK company based in the UK. They are under UK jurisdiction, not US jurisdiction.
Think of it this way, McDonalds is an American company, but their UK subsidiary has to follow UK law, not American law. Does that make sense to you? The UK business follows UK advertising law, food safety law, employee protection law, environmental law, etc. Not US law.
If they operate in the US, like they are at this very moment in Miami, they are supposed to follow US law. They don't get some weird ass exception just cause the governing body is located elsewhere. Just like countries are free to ban cigarette advertising, the US does have the ability to say "you want to race here, follow our rules."
Think of it this way, McDonalds is an American company, but their UK subsidiary has to follow UK law, not American law. But if that UK franchisee wants to open a store in the US, they still have to follow US law. Does that make sense to you? The business that is operating in the US follows US advertising law, food safety law, employee protection law, environmental law, etc. Not JUST UK law.
Yes, they can revoke their Miami race. Good, we're getting somewhere. I'm glad you've come around and changed your stance.
They have jurisdiction of what happens in the US, but not elsewhere. I.e. they can blackmail FOM by saying if you don't allow (another) American team into F1 then you can't race in the US...
But they cannot apply US laws to FOM or enforce that they must allow more entrants.
Yes just UK law. A McDonald's in the UK only has to follow UK law. If you think otherwise, you are wrong.
There's usually a reason. What is the reason? It is the answer to the letters question.
I don't know what you're saying, can you speak plainly? This reads like a chatGPT response or a bad attempt at a riddle.
Should countries be able to compel the NFL to allow entry to teams they like, on the basis that not allowing them in is anti-competitive?
If no, then what's with the double standard? Is it American exceptionalism? Something else?
If the NFL received a request to franchise a foreign team and rejected it, they would state why, per their own rules, they rejected it. That is what the letter demands.
Understand?
So, to go back in time...
The FIA spent months of due diligence on the Andretti Global business plan and resources. They pronounced them good to go.
The teams and Liberty made Andretti jump through hoops, and rejected them giving no good reason.
There's already an explanation: because they wanted to and aren't obliged to let anybody into their club that wants to join.
And nah, the NFL doing that wouldn't matter. Not letting them in would still be anti-competitive and not following UK law.
So, that proves they are anti competitive and they'll be referred to the the DOJ just like FIFA. Congrats
It proves nothing other than it's their sporting organisation where they call the shots, and they called a shot.
Is it anti-competitive for a private sporting organisation to not allow people to enter whenever they want? I don't think so.
Again, since you keep dodging it, should the UK or elsewhere be able to force the NFL to grant entry to UK teams on the grounds of it being anti-competitive as it stands?
It's a business listed on the NYSE. As such, it must follow the laws of the US.
No. You are misunderstanding how this works.
If Andretti wants to take FOM to court to join F1 then the Concorde Agreement comes into it, which is set out in English law. FOM is headquartered in the UK, and Formula 1 disputes are governed by agreements that designate English courts as the venue (although some that impact the FIA side of things are in French law). Since Formula 1's operations are rooted in UK law, any legal challenge by Andretti against FOM would have to follow the rules set out in these agreements, which require legal proceedings to happen in the UK. No ifs, no buts.
Even though FOM is owned by an American company, the legal framework around Formula 1means that any disputes have to be dealt with in UK courts.
Think of it this way. If Cadburys refused to grant a license to a company in Australia to sell their chocolate there, they'd go to court in the UK, because Cadburys is a UK company, despite being owned by a US firm. They'd be taking Cadburys to court, not Mondelez. Just as Andretti would take FOM to court, not Liberty.
I don't have any problem with Andretti taking them to court....they just need to do it in the right place where they can actually do something, all the US can do is review it, say they agree but cant enforce a thing as FOM is not a US company.
You need to read the article. Congress is asking if FOM is being anticompetitive by not allowing GM to compete. It has very little to do with Andretti.
I've read the article. It's a few congress people sabre-rattling about a matter they don't understand.
Andretti lobbied a few congress people, it's semantics. It doesn't change anything about my comment or the situation. FOM is not under US jurisdiction and the US can't tell them what to do or find them guilty of anything.
This can only be challenged in UK courts.
Do you think that the NFL can be challenged in UK courts for not allowing British teams in the league? Could you explain your reasoning behind that logic?
Again.
The lead congressman is from Michigan, home of GM.
FOM is a US company and very much under US law. Even if it wasn't it could still be charged with US antitrust laws.
The same thing happened to FIFA
No. FOM is a British company and is under British law. The Concorde Agreement is under British law. You are wrong. Please do your research.
Stop dodging the damn question. How many times do you need to be asked? Answer it.
No, FWONK is a US company, but nevermind the facts. The Concord Agreement is a registered corporate document of a US company that used to be known as Liberty Media, and is now Formula One. As such, it is under the purview of of the SEC, DOJ among others. This is not a contract dispute. It is a potential antitrust suit.
No. FOM is a British company, based in the UK, bound by UK law. It is headquartered in London. The Concorde Agreement is also under the purview of British law. You keep repeating that 2+2=5, but that does not make it so.
Stop ignoring my question. Answer it.
I really don't know what your problem is. I've already told you that you're wrong, but it doesn't matter. FiFA is a Swiss company, and they have been successfully sued by the US government on antitrust. Also, the Concord Agreement contract doesn't matter except to the point of F1 minding their own rules. Antitrust is not a contract dispute, as I said
I've been patient. Be glad to answer your question if you state it plainly.
I've told you that you're wrong. FOM is under UK jurisdiction, it's a UK company. And the Concorde Agreement is answerable to UK law, not US law.
If Andretti wants in, they'll have to challenge it in UK courts, not American ones.
I don't think I can dumb this down any more for you, I'm sorry.
And no, since you've been dodging the question, clearly you aren't. Answer it. Do you think the UK has the right to tell the NFL that they must accept British teams? Yes or no.
This is the last time I'll say this.
Liberty is a US company, and owns F1. It doesn't matter what law their contracts construction contain because this is not a contract issue.
This is not about Andretti, it's about GM.
That question is in reality useless, since the NFL would love to have a British team. If they did have a team complying with their rules, and the NFL was found to be breaking British antitrust laws; I've got no problem with them being sued.
That's not how this works. McDonald's owns McDonald's UK, but that doesn't mean that McDonald's UK follows US laws. It follows UK laws. The same applies to FOM, which is a British business, based in the UK, and complies with UK law. US laws don't apply to them, nor is there any mechanisms to apply them.
How is that hard to understand? How many more times do I need to explain it to you? If you set up a lemonade stand in the US then another in Spain, they'll follow the laws of where they're based respectively. They wouldn't bother be under the guise of US law.
Yes it is.
Yes it is.
Stop dodging the question.
Interesting... So you think any country should be able to sue any company or sporting organisation for their business elsewhere. Cool. I'll be awaiting, say, Germany suing USPS and you cheering for it.
There are US laws for business. Most countries have them. Antitrust laws are not contingent on internal contracts. It's a law not a contract dispute. If you can acknowledge that it might be worthwhile to go further.
US laws don't apply outside of the US.
I get that you're really into your nationalism and American exceptionalism over there, but surely you understand that.
US law is as relevant here as Japanese law.
Sigh.
US laws apply to anybody or anything on US Ground. That includes people, business, and things like money and banking.
If you want to practice monopolistic business practices in other parts of the world and exclude the US and U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement countries, that is up to you and the antitrust laws of the EU and Britain.
If this is your way of saying you understand this is not a contract matter, say so.
Exactly, and FOM isn't in the US, it's in the UK. I can show you a map if you like.
This really isn't complicated.
So, it's not a contract issue
You are dead wrong about F1 being a foreign entity but suppose it is. Suppose it is incorporated in Britain instead of Delaware. Then it still can be indicted as was FIFA, a Swiss company, as this article explains.
https://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/27/why-fifa-is-being-prosecuted-in-the-us.html#:~:text=FIFA%20may%20be%20based%20in,some%20of%20its%20top%20officials.
BTW, the Feds won this case.
It is a foreign entity, are you stupid? The UK is not in the US. I can show you a map if you like. How could you possibly argue that a business based in the UK isn't a foreign entity to the US.
Doesn't apply to FOM.
Also, this covers financial crimes in which American financial companies and a headquarters based in the US was involved.
Very different to FOM, a British company, the FIA, a French company, and teams (various countries) setting standards on who can join their private club.
Should the NFL be under the jurisdiction of the UK?
OK, we'll end this right here. You obviously are on the edge. I'll block you for good measure.
You've never used chatgpt
Wrong.
Or andretti made a considerable donation to their campaign ;)
As the article says, the Congressman from Michigan is involved. Michigan is the home of GM. GM is going to reintroduce the Cadillac name to Europe. GM is being excluded from marketing though F1. So, it's probably GM not Mario. Though, Mario has plenty of money.
I don't know enough about American politics to know how much it costs to pay off a rep, but Mario racked up over $100,000 worth of donations to Republicans, and his daughter-in-law, Jodi Peterson, about $30,000 to both parties.
Edit: Mario is at $144k according to www.fec.gov
I can't remember what the exact numbers were, but that last time I saw someone put together charts of "oh this company gave $X to Reps A, B, and C, and they all backed this law, hm", it was something depressingly low, like 25k.
It's been said that old Mario made twice as much money trading stock than he did racing cars. He was better at it than his twin brother Aldo, who was a very successful stock broker.
Surely any country could do this, making it laughably unrealistic.
Any country could just say "according to our interpretation of our law X, you must allow new F1 entries from our country"
I imagine the FIA is under no obligation to allow entry of a team just because some country where the FIA isn't even based demands it.
I guess Liberty being American adds complexity, but as far as I know it's not up to them.
Similarly, if the UK said their laws state that UK teams should be able to join the NFL, it should be laughed at. But that's what the US is doing here.
The EU also has laws about anti competitive practices and I would think this letter might stir their interest.
First of all, the FIA is a sanctioning body which only owns the F1 brand. It is very much in the US, since it sanctions racing here. I myself held an FIA license. The FIA approved Andretti's inclusion.
Liberty and the F1 Constructors are the ones on the hook.
Yes, I'm aware there are races in the US. I'm saying all they can really do is stop them from racing in the US, and a couple of other peripheral things to be a thorn in F1's side to apply pressure. They can't really impose terms on the FIA beyond that, because it's not their jurisdiction.
Besides, the Concorde Agreement is set out in English law. They'd have to challenge it in an English court.
Seems to me there might be other kinds of problems. For instance, Formula One is listed on the NY Stock Exchange. At the very least, an anti-trust suit would wound the company. But, it could turn into bigger things. GM/Andretti would get a whole lot of money in damages. Considering what happened to FIFA...
But, this letter is merely a shot across the bow it seems to me. They have to answer it, so we'll see what they say.
But F1 is racing in the US, in theory there's a threat of Vegas, Miami or COTA cancelling their contracts.
Agreed. But they can't really force the FIA to follow and rules the US says, as the FIA isn't in the US. All they can do is threaten to not let them race in the US.
Additionally, the Concorde Agreement, which is what they're taking issue with, is set out in English Law, and would need to be challenged in an English court.
All they could really do is threaten to take US races away, or the Netflix series. The FIA, constructors, and to some extent FOM is not under US jurisdiction.
Not if the FIA want to stay and operate in that country. The FIA is not exempt from national laws.
Sure they can leave the US. But if they want to operate in the US, believe it or not, US laws apply.