Can Formula One survive a post-free-to-air world?

Yeah, and hopefully this is where they're going. I really advocate for a MotoGP model in this regard — when you watch MotoGP coverage on Sunday you don't get the impression that you're watching three different series; they all feel interconnected. It starts with the fact there's a good degree of crossover between the two commentary teams (I think the only difference is that Nick Harris doesn't to Moto2/3), which then means the way they present MotoGP is more inclusive of the whole weekend of racing rather than being narrowly focussed only on the one category. If FOM treated F2 and F3 in the same way it does F1 rather than pushing it off to one side as a mere support category, everyone would benefit (also there'd be three times as much racing/content each weekend).

Fingers crossed! Obviously it's difficult to tell what F1 on TV could look like in the next five years given we don't know what was in the Foxtel contract — whether it's exclusive to Fox, whether Fox has bought the right to sublicense the rights to a junior FTA partner etc. A free-to-air resumption could be around the corner for all we know, that it'll unlikely be with Ten given the unhappiness between the Murdochs and the whole Ten sitch... The commercial rights holder seems to have a plan, at very least, which is more than could be said of the sport not so long ago. Some of it will simply be experimenting given motorsport isn't really like other sports in terms of broadcast consumption, but so long as they listen and adapt as they go — which they certainly seem to be doing — then hopefully we'll reach a place that can satisfy the most number of people.

It's hard to believe Foxtel still charges just to watch in HD! I have the internet version of Foxtel and I'm lucky to get SD coverage, though... I don't blame you. I wouldn't hesitate so much paying for the sport package on its own if I could, even if it were $25 or per month, but it's the fact you have to pay for a 'base' package packed with channels you won't watch is what I find most frustrating. In fact $25 per month for the amount of sport Foxtel broadcasts is reasonably good value. Maybe that's the road it'll ultimately end up going down if the likes of Netflix and others continue to steal subscribers.

Hi mate — completely understand about Sky Sports F1! The place I was staying during this year's British GP had a subscription, and I was disappointed to find that it mostly repeated the same handful of old content every day. I can't tell you how many times I've now watched Martin Brundle visiting Bernie Ecclestone's house in Brazil! I suppose that's a pretty good argument for video on demand (like Netflix etc) over having a 24-hour F1 station. I hear C4 is doing a great job, but I've only been able to see bits of it over the years given we get the Sky coverage in Australia on Foxtel. I remember when the split model started in the UK and thinking that it might actually work out okay given F1 interest is high and replays would be on at reasonable times and not too long after the race itself, and I think that's sort of happened, though viewership still hasn't returned to its BBC highs. It's harder in Australia where, like you say, it's a small market with races on at obscure times. It's a shame the UK market is going the same way as we are in the next few years and losing FTA — but hopefully whatever the commercial rights holder is planning to save viewership will have come to fruition by then.

Thanks for the comments, Paul! You raise a lot of good points, especially about what F1 has to offer from a digital broadcast standpoint. Already the sport is working on ways to broadcast 360-degree footage in real time, which would completely change the way we'd experience racing. I know what you mean about pay TV feeling like a backwards step — I suppose it's chiefly because there are just fewer viewers there. What I think is interesting is how pay TV is viewed differently around the world. Australia and (I think, but perhaps to a lesser extent) the UK just don't have the pay TV mentality, perhaps because we have a strong history of FTA sport — we have legislation protecting certain sports from disappearing behind a paywall, for example. On the other hand, 'cable' pay TV in the USA is more widespread, which might make a subscription over-the-top model more successful there, where paying for sport is second nature. Will one side of the debate just have to adapt? Hard to say. Certainly F1's ratings have spiked and troughed over recent times. When Webber was in the heat of the 2010 title fight Formula One coverage became genuinely valuable for Ten. It's hard to know whether that was the highest point reached and how it compared now, though.

Thanks for the comment, mate. I think a lot of people are feeling the same thing. Given how fragmented the TV market has become — like you say, ISPs are getting in on the game themselves now — it'd be interesting if F1 offered an F1 channel to a bunch of the minor players so you could subscribe to it via Optus or Telstra or whoever as a way of maximising how many people have the opportunity to subscribe easily. I don't know if this is in the works at all, but it could be a way forward — F1 has experimented with being its own station before, albeit with poor results, but the opportunities to pull such a strategy off today are greater than they were 15 years ago.

Yep, that's absolutely true. Australia's a small market in a global sense, so we're never going to be critical to the sport overall. The Australian Grand Prix contract runs one year after the new Foxtel deal expires, so as long as the race persists, there'll always be a bedrock of viewers to tap into when the environment changes.

MotoGP, as I understand it, is around the $200 mark for a season pass (not considering preseason discount rates, which are more like $150, nor the discounts you get if you subscribe later in the season). That's approximately $12 per race, which isn't terrible value, especially when you consider the video offering is fairly comprehensive. But, like you say, the sheer quantity of content can't match a league like the NFL, which is better value in that sense. That's why I think what F1 provides on top of the races themselves — other programming, pre and post-race shows, commentary styles, camera angles etc — will be important. Maybe a subscriber would have access to the back catalogue of races, for example. That'd be pretty epic.

Yeah, I share that concern about Sky. The station does a fine job, but at the end of the day it's the British broadcaster — either it stops playing to the Hamilton/British audience or F1 should put together its own neutral team. I'm optimistic the new commercial rights holder will make an effort to move back towards FTA in these sorts of markets. At the end of the day viewers do count, even if they're not immediately monetised by subscription fees. How this happens and when, though, is anyone's guess given the various contracts already in place.

You raise some good points, Chris. In particular how F1 prices itself and then justifies that price when most other sports are working with substantially more content and the fracturing of the market. I've often thought about what happens when content, not just sport, splits into more and more exclusive channels. If people only subscribe to one or two of what could be 10 different streaming providers, inevitably they're going to miss out on some things. It's an interesting question we'll have to confront one day. I think a happy middle ground would see more comprehensive highlights of each race on FTA and at a more competitive time than late Monday night — enough to follow the sport and retain that vital stumble-on value you talk about for casual viewers but not so much a hardcore fan wouldn't be interested in moving up to a paid tier of coverage.