Administration and financial fair play are words you usually associate with modern day football clubs.

But last week those very same words became the main subject matter for Formula 1.

I am a massive Formula 1 fan and was saddened to see the departure of Oxfordshire’s Marussia and Caterham, two of the smaller teams in the championship, who have both gone into administration.

I have been at a football club that was facing administration when I was at Leeds United.

Luckily for me it didn’t happen when I was there, but sadly it did eventually happen some years later.

Latest Sport news

Leeds suffered from over-spending and possibly spending money that they didn’t have.

That is a theme at a lot of modern day football clubs.

There is now financial fair play in the sport and has been since 2011, which was introduced by UEFA to improve the overall financial health of European club football.

Basically, it means clubs have to prove that they have paid their bills.

How can financial fair play work in motor-racing?

There is excessive spending in Formula 1 which is part of the sport’s history and culture.

Every team has a annual spending budget to put two competitive cars on track for 19 races and, just like football, those budgets are very different.

Last season, a top team like Ferrari had a budget of around £250m and received £80.5m in prize money for finishing third in the constructors’ title the previous year.

At the other end of the grid, Marussia’s budget was just £51m and they received only £8m in prize money for finishing tenth.

Not quite an even spread, and it’s easy to see why Marussia have fallen on hard times.

Cap the spending is one and a better spread on the prize money are two of the main suggested changes in Formula 1.

There are so many other ideas about how to make it a more even playing field for both big and small teams on the grid.

It’s been a tug of war as the teams at the top end of the grid such as Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes don’t want to give up their advantage on and off the track.

They do concede however that the sport needs the small teams like Sauber, Caterham and Marussia, but not at the cost of losing their stranglehold.

If I were Formula 1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone for a day, apart from spending a couple of million from his £1billion piggy bank, here’s how I would change things.

I would have six big teams or manufacturers like Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes, McLaren, Williams and Lotus.

Those six would have a B team or a reserve team that use their engine, but a smaller team would pay to run it.

For example, Marussia could run the Mercedes B team under the banner Marussia-Mercedes.

It would be up to Marussia to bring the sponsorship in for the B team, but of course the high cost of engine development and upgrades would be absorbed by Mercedes.

Marussia can then give a seat to a pay driver (that’s a driver that brings money in way of sponsorship to the team) or to young developing drivers which has always happened in Formula 1.

The grid is then filled by 18 or 24 drivers, depending on how many the B teams have, and then the gap in performance between the front and the back of the grid isn’t that big.

More importantly, there is less chance of teams becoming extinct. I hope the solution arrives quickly, but that it is the right one.

I also have my fingers crossed that Lewis Hamilton brings home the drivers’ title.

C’mon Lewis!!

  •  Do you want alerts delivered straight to your phone via our WhatsApp service? Text NEWS or SPORT or NEWS AND SPORT, depending on which services you want, and your full name to 07767 417704. Save our number into your phone’s contacts as Oxford Mail WhatsApp and ensure you have WhatsApp installed.