The difference talent detection isn't just about money though, but general interest and how difficult it is to detect the talent. I bet there are a lot of people that could be great at baseball in Europe, but surprisingly, nobody there plays baseball. The best possible soccer players in India are probably not playing soccer either... and the issue in those two isn't money. Starting training early at the right thing is often more crucial than talent outside of, say, basketball and volleyball, and when your father is already in the sport, it's far more likely that you'll try from a young age, get good coaching and access to sponsorships. It's more that than, say Carlos Jr's father being rich because of his continued Rally driving. There's a lot of people that are more than rich enough: they just don't try.
One might have some incredible Olympic rifle shooters or kayakers or weightlifters or what have you, but because those sports are niche in many countries those talents may never surface (so Madeleine's amazing fast-twitch weightlifting nerves/muscles are 'wasted' on volleyball instead). When you really care about medal count, all sports are important, so you want to maximize your chances of finding the right kids to put on the national squads years in the future. It's really smart, but depends upon political/economic structures thankfully not present in other locations.
> Now imagine the equivalent of the US basketball or football system, where hundreds of thousands of kids start the sport young and are gradually filtered out all the way up to college and then pro leagues, ensuring the absolute best of the best are ultimately selected.
The barriers to these sports are becoming higher and higher, just like there are high barrier costs associated with karting/racing.
Yes it still requires sacrificing a lot of time and some money, but not worse than many regular sports.
And yes, always need to be careful about making definitive statements.
People are trying to address the pipeline problem you've highlighted by scouting talented drivers from simulators, which is great, but ultimately there's a huge cost to racing a physical car/kart/motorcycle compared to basically every other sport.
Because the barrier to entry is low, talent filters up better in many other sports. We probably know who the best hockey player in Canada is, but who would be the best dressage rider is a mystery because few kids have access.
Yes, under some counterfactual condition, there are better Olympians, but that imaginary world is not equivalent or meaningful in the real and current one. This is the basic conceit of a lot of critical theories and ideas, they aren't rooted in the real.
Not to say we should never fix anything, but I need more convincing that this is a real problem.
The drivers, incredibly skilled as they are, will also frequently do things like go on the radio during races and complain about their car to their team, i.e. the persons responsible for said car. Not offer any constructive input, just... complain. Often. On the other hand, that's one of the few times they actually show any emotions or say what they think, with all the media training and endless PR events and making sure the sponsor logo on their hat is clearly in view in interview after interview after interview... Yeah, I'm ranting. But it's all just so incredibly blatantly commercial. Again, like any sport once it grows big enough.
(Another commenter wrote about the interesting technical side of the sport: I agree that there would be so many more interesting stories to tell there: about car development, strategy, manufacturing... but whenever these things are touched upon, it's done in a very shallow way, to prevent people quitting their subscription in horror at having to digest some actual information. Instead we get things like PR events with drivers having to pretend they enjoy whatever ridiculous competition they're put in against their teammate as part of their contractual obligations. It seems there could be so much more there... but perhaps this way is more profitable.)
But moreover, so what? Why should the inaccessibility of a sport matter to a spectator's enjoyment?
I also disagree with the idea that you have to come from immense wealth to be a driver. The lower levels of racing are where you start out prove your talent are karting. I see some racing karts brand new online for about $2k. You’ve got to maybe be middle class or the low end of upper middle class to get into it, and if you’re good then the levels above that basically sponsor you.
It’s not like you have to personally own and operate the cars to drive. Look at Lewis Hamiton’s background and biography for an example.
Verstappen, Sainz, Leclerc - fathers raced cars
Alonso - father was amateur kart racer
Norris, Stroll, Perez - wealthy families
Hamilton, Russell - middle-class parents
Like most sports, being born into it helps a lot, as done wealth. But, it's not a guarantee and there are F1 drivers from relatively normal backgrounds.
F1 is a sport for elites + billionaires, but even the racers are all incredibly wealthy/fortunate nepo babies. It's one of the most inaccessible sports in the entire world. It takes an average of $2M+ for a person to enter F1 as a driver.
Imagine if every kid in the US alone had the privilege/fortune to race carts/cars since they were children, growing up immersed in the scene. Now imagine the equivalent of the US basketball or football system, where hundreds of thousands of kids start the sport young and are gradually filtered out all the way up to college and then pro leagues, ensuring the absolute best of the best are ultimately selected.
The F1 candidate pool represents a rounding error in comparison.
Sure, the drivers who make it are great. They started young and they worked hard to get there. But we're fundamentally BARELY penetrating the global potential here. The greatest possible drivers in the world will statistically never enter the sport. They won't even be able to afford a ticket to watch F1 in person.