this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
54 points (95.0% liked)

Formula 1

9059 readers
37 users here now

Welcome to Formula1 @ Lemmy.world Lemmy's largest community for Formula 1 and related racing series


Rules


  1. Be respectful to everyone; drivers, lemmings, redditors etc
  2. No gambling, crypto or NFTs
  3. Spoilers are allowed
  4. Non English articles should include a translation in the comments by deepl.com or similar
  5. Paywalled articles should include at least a brief summary in the comments, the wording of the article should not be altered
  6. Social media posts should be posted as screenshots with a link for those who want to view it
  7. Memes are allowed on Monday only as we all do like a laugh or 2, but donโ€™t want to become formuladank.

Up next


F1 Calendar

2024 Calendar

Location Date
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ United States 21-23 Nov
๐Ÿ‡ถ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Qatar 29 Nov-01 Dec
๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡ช Abu Dhabi 06-08 Dec

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Rapidcreek 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] TheGrandNagus 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] Rapidcreek 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So, that proves they are anti competitive and they'll be referred to the the DOJ just like FIFA. Congrats

[โ€“] TheGrandNagus 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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?

[โ€“] Rapidcreek 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's a business listed on the NYSE. As such, it must follow the laws of the US.

[โ€“] TheGrandNagus 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] Rapidcreek 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] TheGrandNagus 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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?

[โ€“] Rapidcreek 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[โ€“] TheGrandNagus 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] Rapidcreek 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] TheGrandNagus 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] Rapidcreek 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] TheGrandNagus 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] Rapidcreek 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This is the last time I'll say this.

  1. 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.

  2. This is not about Andretti, it's about GM.

  3. 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.

[โ€“] TheGrandNagus 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Liberty is a US company, and owns F1.

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.

this is not a contract issue.

Yes it is.

This is not about Andretti

Yes it is.

That question is in reality useless, since the NFL would love to have a British team.

Stop dodging the question.

and the NFL was found to be breaking British antitrust laws; I've got no problem with them being sued.

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.

[โ€“] Rapidcreek 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] TheGrandNagus 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] Rapidcreek 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] TheGrandNagus 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] Rapidcreek 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Exactly

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.

[โ€“] TheGrandNagus 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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.

Currie explained that CONCACAFโ€™s headquarters has been in the United Statesโ€”in New York and then Floridaโ€”for the entire time period included in the indictment.

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?

[โ€“] Rapidcreek 1 points 6 months ago

OK, we'll end this right here. You obviously are on the edge. I'll block you for good measure.