COTA Chairman: 'I Think We're Screwed.'

Mark Stevenson
by Mark Stevenson

Just weeks following the conclusion of a rain-soaked United States Grand Prix at the Circuit of the Americas in Austin, Texas, certain details are coming to light that threaten the continuation of the event — and quite possibly operation of the facility as a whole.

One of the many pieces that keeps the event in Austin is the state’s Major Events Trust Fund, which has provided $25 million a year to race promoters since COTA began hosting Formula 1 in 2012.

It was believed the annual $25 million payment was assured for at least 10 years, for a total commitment of $250 million, to be paid by the State of Texas. However, a change in government and an audit of how the fund calculates major events payments has meant race organizers received just $19.5 million for 2015, or $5.5 million less than what was expected.

According to the Austin Statesman, economic development officials in Governor Greg Abbott’s government cut the payments based on “new formulas for measuring economic impact.”

Payments from the Major Events Trust Fund are based on the ability an event has to bring in out-of-state tax revenue. A recent report issued by state auditor John Keel found that some of the taxes included when calculating reimbursement shouldn’t have been considered, and new formulas were developed to exclude the ineligible tax revenue.

That audit report was released in September.

Circuit of the Americas, as they had done in years past, applied for reimbursement through the fund several weeks before the race. The application showed a projected economic gain to the state of $25 million. Based on the new formulas, the state said they would only reimburse race organizers $19.5 million.

“It hit us cold. No one could foresee this coming,” said COTA chairman Bobby Epstein.

The Major Events Trust Fund has been used as a crutch since Day One to pay the incredibly high sanctioning fees demanded by F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone. It’s believed the entire $25 million collected from the fund goes to pay the annual sanctioning fee. With less money coming in from the fund, and race promoters already making razor thin margins at the best of times, the future of the event is in serious doubt.

“To use a technical term,” Epstein said, “I think we’re screwed.”

If it were just a matter of one race, the subsidy cut likely wouldn’t be much cause for concern, and COTA would simply lose the race. However, COTA’s entire existence revolves around hosting Formula 1.

In 2011, governor Rick Perry and comptroller Susan Combs, who controlled the fund, sent letters to Ecclestone referencing the numbers. COTA’s promoters believe those letters represent a commitment from the state to support the event over 10 years.

“An entire facility was constructed based on that deal,” said Dave Shaw, spokesman for Circuit of the Americas, “If the calculation is changed now, that’s effectively changed the terms of the deal.”

The United States Grand Prix is far from the only race on the Formula 1 World Championship calendar to receive funding from government to operate.

Federal, provincial and municipal governments announced a funding plan in 2014 to insure the Canadian Grand Prix stayed on the calendar, and in Montreal, until 2024. The Turkish Grand Prix, last run in 2011, was removed from the calendar because local governments wouldn’t help pay the exorbitant event sanctioning fees.

[Photo credit: Circuit of the Americas]

Mark Stevenson
Mark Stevenson

More by Mark Stevenson

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 35 comments
  • Wmba Wmba on Nov 12, 2015

    Ecclestone flogged off a lot of Formula One a decade ago to CVC partners. He just runs it for a management fee, and narrowly missed going to jail in Germany a couple of years ago. It's amusing to me that the millionaires who get bamboozled by Bernie to fork over ridiculous fees to hold a F1 race show no sign of the nouse they had making their own millions. http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/oct/06/bernie-ecclestone-parties-interested-buying-formula-one "It was reported over the summer that CVC Capital Partners, the private equity firm which has owned F1 for the last 10 years, was in talks with a US-Qatari bid to sell its 35.5% controlling stake, while Ecclestone confirmed he would sell his 5% stake as part of any deal."

  • Danio3834 Danio3834 on Nov 13, 2015

    I went to Austin last year for the COTA F1 race and it was a great event and top notch facility. It's too bad they can't make it work without having to rely on welfare. C'est la vie, maybe I'll put a bid on the place.

  • Ash78 Interesting take on the pricing...superficially illogical, but Honda has been able to sell the Pilot Junior (er, Passport) for more than the Pilot for several years now. I guess this is the new norm. I have 2 kids, who often have friends, and I feel like the best option here is buying the CX-90 and removing the third row completely. It won't be pretty, but it adds useful space. We've done that in our minivan several times.I've been anxiously awaiting the 70 for over a year, but the pricing makes it a non-starter for me. I like the 50, but it's tight (small, not dope/fire/legit); I like the 90s, but it's more than we need. This "Goldilocks Solution" feels like it's missing the mark a little. Mazda could have gone with more of a CX-60 (ROW model) and just refreshed it for the US, but I suspect the 90 was selling so well, the more economical choice was just to make it the same basic car. Seems lazy to me.
  • FreedMike If you haven't tried out the CX-90, do so - it's a great driver, particularly with the PHEV powertrain.
  • Ajla I don't understand why it is priced above the CX-90 (about $2500 at every trim level on the I6 and $5k on the PHEV), unless a CX-90 price increase is on the way soon. It will be interesting to see how this does against the CX-90, that one isn't packaged well for a 3-row but with a lower price, very similar exterior styling and identical exterior dimensions I'd lean towards it over the 70. The pricing on higher trims is a bit dear for a nonpremium badge and it is annoying that Mazda and the press pretend that the lower nonS trims don't even exist. Why even bother making them if you won't take it to your own media event?I would expect the engine and chassis configuration to be a killer app here but it seems like engine/transmission is only 80% baked and the interior is what sells these. Reliability is a big question mark as well. In the end outside of a specific buyer (this seems like something Corey would like), I'd recommend getting something cheaper and more established.
  • Dave M. I love what Mazda stands for and how hard they try. Their cars are well crafted and pretty reliable. But they must simply get their mpgs up to be competitive against the Lexus RX450h and Toyota Highlander Platinum hybrid if they're going to play in that $45-60k price range.
  • 1995 SC In order for the UAW to gain traction in the South you would need the cost of living to rise significantly in the areas these plants are in and wages to not keep up or some significant abuses by the owners of these plants to come to light. You talk about job security but the only plants that aren't closing are non-union. The US makers can't ship production to Mexico fast enough. People aren't dumb...they see this stuff.
Next