Business in Formula 1: How Racetracks Are Chosen and Funded
- Mariya Kirichok
- 1 day ago
- 5 min read
Formula 1 races take us all across the world: from the scorching heat of Singapore to rainy Silverstone circuit in Great Britain. The exceptions cluster in the north and center of the continent: Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, and Norway have never held a lasting place on the calendar, each for a different reason. Following the catastrophic 1955 Le Mans disaster, Switzerland banned circuit racing outright—a prohibition lifted in 2026 after 71 years (RacingNews365, 2026).
Sweden hosted a Grand Prix at Anderstorp from 1973 to 1978, but the race was discontinued after driver Ronnie Peterson’s death and the loss of rising star Gunnar Nilsson to illness that same year, a blow the sport never rebuilt from. Finland and Norway, meanwhile, never developed the circuit-racing infrastructure or market to make a case for hosting at all. Choosing tracks for the racing calendar, then, is a far more intricate business calculation than it looks from the grandstands—in the end, it depends on three main factors: market situation, number of alternatives, and the measurements by which success is determined.
Let’s look at F1 from the angle of a business portfolio and uncover the hidden strategies behind hosting rights and entry fees.
QATAR VS. ZANDVOORT: FUNDING
Many Gulf countries in the Middle East have begun prioritizing tourism growth as a way to promote themselves internationally and diversify their revenues away from oil. Securing a ten-year hosting deal with Liberty Media in 2021 was only one piece of Qatar’s own Vision 2030 strategy, which also included hosting the 2022 World Cup (Formula1.com, 2021). The government covers all costs, including the roughly $55 million entry fee (arthnova.com, n.d.).
This means dependence on ticket-sale income is greatly reduced: the goal is to attract tourists, not to recoup costs. In Zandvoort, Netherlands, the situation is entirely different. The race was revived largely on the strength of Max Verstappen’s popularity—the Dutch four-time World Champion—as investors saw an opportunity to profit from hosting a Grand Prix.
Hosting costs, which are not government-subsidized, had climbed to roughly €70 million by 2024, not including the entry fee (gpblog.com, n.d.). This makes the Dutch Grand Prix far more exposed to financial risk, and ultimately less sustainable to keep running. If a race weekend in Qatar were cancelled two days beforehand, it would not create the same immediate financial exposure: the government has already covered the costs, and the goal was tourism exposure, not ticket revenue.
Under the same circumstances, Zandvoort’s private organizers would suffer major losses. The very definition of a successful race weekend, in other words, differs completely between the two.
MONACO VS. LAS VEGAS: HERITAGE
Few destinations are as closely associated with F1 as Monaco and Silverstone, home to the first Formula 1 World Championship Grand Prix. According to arthnova.com (n.d.), these circuits pay among the lowest entry fees on the calendar—approximately $20 million a year. Liberty Media is effectively sacrificing revenue it could otherwise raise through higher entry fees, in order to protect the brand image.
That bet is expected to pay off in the long run, much like Monaco’s heritage and rich racing history. Las Vegas, by contrast, sits in Liberty Media’s primary target market—the United States—and pays no traditional entry fee at all, since Liberty owns and promotes the race itself rather than licensing it to a third party. Before Liberty Media bought F1 from Bernie Ecclestone in 2017, the sport held just one race in America, leaving much of the country as an essentially untapped market.
Liberty has since prioritized US races heavily, as the next section explores, not only for their revenue potential but for the strategic value of expanding in its own home market.
AUSTIN VS. SPA: OVERSATURATION
Europe has been Formula 1’s home turf since the sport’s founding, and many historical circuits—Spa, Hungaroring, Red Bull Ring, Barcelona-Catalunya, Hockenheim, and more—are now competing for a place on a 24-race calendar. The market is oversaturated with culturally significant circuits, while the United States, by contrast, has only three current Grand Prix hosts. That imbalance is why Spa, in Belgium, will only remain on the calendar on a rotational basis, skipping the 2028 and 2030 seasons, while Austin, Texas secured an eight-year contract extension running through 2034 (Associated Press, 2026; BlackBook Motorsport, n.d.).
Liberty Media has signaled a desire to diversify its destinations further, with CEO Stefano Domenicali citing Thailand, South Korea, and other emerging markets as valuable alternatives to Europe’s saturated circuit (Jackson, 2026). On the 2026 calendar, 37% of all races are European—and that share is expected to keep shrinking in the years ahead. Europe’s depth extends beyond the current calendar, too: of the 19 FIA Grade One-certified circuits currently sitting unused by F1 worldwide, several of the most prominent—the Nürburgring, Magny-Cours, and Paul Ricard—are European (PlanetF1, 2025).
THREE-AXIS COMPARISON
Each circuit was picked for a different reason—whether market desirability, an absence of alternatives, or the need to preserve brand image. Viewed as a business portfolio rather than a ranking of great racetracks, F1’s calendar reveals clear patterns: Europe is retained for its historical weight, even as slots are pushed toward the growing US market; Qatar and Abu Dhabi have locked in reliable, long-term deals with Liberty Media through government funding; and Zandvoort, lacking that same backing, has struggled to keep pace with rising financial demands.
CONCLUSION
None of this means Formula 1’s calendar is simply a matter of who bids highest, nor a sentimental tribute to motorsport history. It functions, instead, like a diversified investment portfolio: each circuit earns its place by satisfying a different mandate, and each is judged against a different scoreboard. Monaco was never competing with Qatar on tourism figures, just as Zandvoort was never competing with Las Vegas on brand prestige—they were never being measured by the same criteria to begin with.
That is exactly what the countries at the edges of this system make plain, from Switzerland’s newly lifted racing ban to Sweden’s abandoned Anderstorp circuit: there is no single test a circuit must pass to join Formula 1’s calendar, only several different ones—and no single test to fail, either. As Liberty Media continues to weigh its options—a saturated Europe, an expanding United States, and a growing list of markets from Thailand to Rwanda vying for a spot—the sport’s future geography will be decided less by nostalgia than by exactly this kind of calculation: not which track is loved the most, but which one is still earning its keep.
SOURCES
Associated Press. (2026). F1 extends US Grand Prix at COTA with 8-year deal through 2034. Fox34. https://www.fox34.com
arthnova.com. (n.d.). How F1 Grand Prix hosting fees became a billion dollar business. Retrieved July 2026, from https://arthnova.com
BlackBook Motorsport. (n.d.). Belgian GP signs multi-year deal to remain on F1 calendar on rotational basis.
Formula1.com. (2021). Official announcement of Qatar’s extended hosting deal. https://www.formula1.com
gpblog.com. (n.d.). F1 Dutch Grand Prix organisers defend €20 million payment.
Jackson, K. (2026). F1 boss teases unprecedented 2026 calendar shake-up: “We have some news to share.” The Independent (via AOL). https://www.aol.com/news/f1-boss-teases-unprecedented-2026-103448094.html
PlanetF1. (2025, June 24). Revealed: The 19 FIA Grade 1 circuits not currently used by Formula 1. https://www.planetf1.com/features/fia-grade-1-circuits-unused-f1
RacingNews365. (2026, May 8). European country lifts 71-year ban on circuit racing. https://racingnews365.com/european-country-lifts-71-year-ban-on-circuit-racing
