Racing purists have already stated their disgust at pay for rides. Is this line of thinking antiquated? Since the costs are ever spiraling upward, it's plain fact that it is expensive to run a team and field competitive machinery. Isn't it prudent for teams to look at what funding a rider brings?
I just think what we are seeing these days is just how things were natuarally going to progress given the ever increasing costs. Do I feel that those who 'bought' a seat stole it from another more worthy? In my view, I don't view them 'stealing' a seat. A grid spot is for anyone's taking. They obtained a seat by offering something attractive (which doesn't always mean superior talent), in this case funding. I don't get furious at those who pay for a seat, because they offer something a team is looking for. This doesn't mean I like the way things are going and it just makes me want to follow MotoGP less and less.
I understand that it's a business and not always a meritocracy. I think this is where purists get caught up, their expectation is that motorsport should always be meritocratic. Ultimately, the reality fails to meet their ideals.
I just think what we are seeing these days is just how things were natuarally going to progress given the ever increasing costs. Do I feel that those who 'bought' a seat stole it from another more worthy? In my view, I don't view them 'stealing' a seat. A grid spot is for anyone's taking. They obtained a seat by offering something attractive (which doesn't always mean superior talent), in this case funding. I don't get furious at those who pay for a seat, because they offer something a team is looking for. This doesn't mean I like the way things are going and it just makes me want to follow MotoGP less and less.
I understand that it's a business and not always a meritocracy. I think this is where purists get caught up, their expectation is that motorsport should always be meritocratic. Ultimately, the reality fails to meet their ideals.
