This article analyses competitive balance in Formula 1 motor racing 1950-2010. It is shown that regulation change has had a significant positive impact on championship uncertainty but not on race uncertainty or long-term dominance. If television viewer suspense is positively related not only to championship uncertainty but also to absolute quality, then this suggests the purpose of such regulation change is to maximize television broadcasting revenues and gross sponsor exposure. A simple econometric model is employed to analyze competitive balance implications of the Resource Restriction Agreement, designed to restrict team expenditure following the global financial crisis.
BerkowitzJ.DepkenC. A.WilsonD. P. (2011). When going in circles is going backward: Outcome uncertainty in NASCAR. Journal of Sports Economics, 12, 253–283.
12.
BoothR. (2000). Labour market intervention, revenue sharing and competitive balance in the victorian football league, 1897-1998. (Unpublished PhD). Monash University, Melbourne.
13.
BudzinskiO.FeddersenA. (2011). Measuring competitive balance in Formula One racing (IME Working Paper), University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg, Denmark.
14.
CainL. P.HaddockD. D. (2006). Research notes: Measuring parity: Tying into the idealized standard deviation. Journal of Sports Economics, 7, 330–338.
15.
CrookerJ. R.FennA. J. (2007). Sports leagues and parity when league parity generates fan enthusiasm. Journal of Sports Economics, 8, 139–164.
16.
CyganA. (2007). Are all sports special? Legal issues in the regulation of formula one motor racing. European Business Law Review, 18, 1327–1351.
17.
DawsonA.DownwardP. (2005). Measuring short-run uncertainty of outcome in sporting leagues: A comment. Journal of Sports Economics, 6, 303–313.
18.
DonahayB.RosenbergerP. J. (2007). Using brand personality to measure the effectiveness of image transfer in formula one. Marketing Bulletin, 18, 1–15.
19.
F1 Racing. (1997a). F1 Racing Magazine, April, 30–34.
20.
F1 Racing. (1997b). F1 Racing Magazine, May, 45–58.
21.
F1 Racing. (1999). F1 Racing Magazine, July, 88.
22.
F1 Racing. (2000). F1 Racing Magazine, May, 26.
23.
F1 Racing. (2002a). F1 Racing Magazine, April, 26–28.
24.
F1 Racing. (2002b). F1 Racing Magazine, December, 24–37.
25.
F1 Racing. (2003a). F1 Racing Magazine, March, 22.
26.
F1 Racing. (2003b). F1 Racing Magazine, September, 62–72, 87.
27.
F1 Racing. (2003c). F1 Racing Magazine, June, 24.
28.
F1 Racing. (2004). F1 Racing Magazine, April, 64–72.
29.
F1 Racing. (2005). F1 Racing Magazine, February, 82.
30.
F1 Racing. (2006a). F1 Racing Magazine, June, 22.
31.
F1 Racing. (2006b). F1 Racing Magazine, July, 25.
32.
F1 Racing. (2006c). F1 Racing Magazine, September, 25.
33.
F1 Racing. (2006d). F1 Racing Magazine, March, 106.
34.
F1 Racing. (2009a). F1 Racing Magazine, February, 37.
35.
F1 Racing. (2009b). F1 Racing Magazine, May, 34–36.
36.
FortR. (2006). Sports economics (2nd ed., pp. 3, 15–22). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
37.
FortR.QuirkJ. (2004). Owner objectives and competitive balance. Journal of Sports Economics, 5, 20–32.
38.
GriffithsT. R. (1997). Grand prix (3rd ed.). London, England: Bloomsbury.
39.
HallS.SzymanskiS.ZimbalistA. S. (2002). Testing causality between team performance and payroll: The cases of major league Baseball and English Soccer. Journal of Sports Economics, 3, 149–168.
40.
HendersonJ. C.FooK.LimH.YipS. (2010). Sports events and tourism: The Singapore formula one grand prix. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 1, 60–73.
41.
HenryA. (1998). Williams formula 1 racing team(pp. 50, 68, 79–89). Newbury Park, CA: Haynes.
42.
HenryA. (2003). The powerbrokers (pp. 20–26). Osceola, WI: Motorbooks International.
HughesM. (2004). The unofficial formula one history (p. 14). London, England: Anness.
45.
JenkinsM. (2010). Technological discontinuities and competitive advantage: A historical perspective on formula 1 motor racing 1950-2006. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 884–908.
46.
JenkinsM.FloydS. (2001). Trajectories in the evolution of technology: A multi-level study of competition in formula 1 racing. Organization Studies, 22, 945–969.
47.
KésenneS. (2000). Revenue sharing and competitive balance in professional team sports. Journal of Sports Economics, 1, 56–65.
48.
KésenneS. (2001). The different impact of different revenue sharing systems on the competitive balance in professional team sports. European Sport Management Quarterly, 1, 210–218.
49.
KésenneS. (2002). The monopsonistic player labour market in a win-maximising league. European Sport Management Quarterly, 2, 180–187.
50.
KésenneS. (2007). Does a win bonus help to increase profit or wins in professional team sports?International Journal of Sport Finance, 2, 142–148.
51.
KipkerI. (2003). Determinanten der TV-Nachfrage in der Formel 1 - Superstar- vs. Spannungseffekte und Implikationen für die Wettbewerbspolitik, 85–103. In Dietl, Helmut (ed.), Globalisierung des wirtschaftlichen Wettbewerbs im Sport. Schorndorf: Verlag Karl Hofmann.
52.
KrauskopfT.MartinL.BüngerB. (2010). The Search for Optimal Competitive Balance in Formula One(CAWM Discussion Paper), University of Münster, Münster, Germany, 38, 1–15.
53.
LeedsM.von AllmenP. (2008). The economics of sports (3rd ed., p.151). Boston, MA: Pearson Addison Wesley.
54.
MastromarcoC.RunkelM. (2009). Rule changes and competitive balance in Formula One motor racing. Applied Economics, 41, 3003–3014.
55.
QuirkJ.FortR. (1992). Pay dirt: The business of professional team sports (p. 243). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
56.
RottenbergS. (1956). The baseball players labour market. Journal of Political Economy, 64, 242–258.
57.
SandersonA. R. (2002). The many dimensions of competitive balance. Journal of Sports Economics, 3, 204–228.
58.
SandersonA. R.SiegfriedJ. J. (2003). Thinking about competitive balanceJournal of Sports Economics, 4, 255–279.
59.
SloaneP. (1971). The economics of professional football: the football club as a utility maximiser. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 17, 121–146.
60.
SolitanderM.SolitanderN. (2010). The sharing, protection and thievery of intellectual assets: The case of the Formula 1 industry. Management Decision, 48, 37–57.
