this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
54 points (95.0% liked)

Formula 1

9070 readers
98 users here now

Welcome to Formula1 @ Lemmy.world Lemmy's largest community for Formula 1 and related racing series


Rules


  1. Be respectful to everyone; drivers, lemmings, redditors etc
  2. No gambling, crypto or NFTs
  3. Spoilers are allowed
  4. Non English articles should include a translation in the comments by deepl.com or similar
  5. Paywalled articles should include at least a brief summary in the comments, the wording of the article should not be altered
  6. Social media posts should be posted as screenshots with a link for those who want to view it
  7. Memes are allowed on Monday only as we all do like a laugh or 2, but don’t want to become formuladank.

Up next


F1 Calendar

2024 Calendar

Location Date
🇺🇸 United States 21-23 Nov
🇶🇦 Qatar 29 Nov-01 Dec
🇦🇪 Abu Dhabi 06-08 Dec

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This is the last time I'll say this.

  1. Liberty is a US company, and owns F1. It doesn't matter what law their contracts construction contain because this is not a contract issue.

  2. This is not about Andretti, it's about GM.

  3. That question is in reality useless, since the NFL would love to have a British team. If they did have a team complying with their rules, and the NFL was found to be breaking British antitrust laws; I've got no problem with them being sued.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Liberty is a US company, and owns F1.

That's not how this works. McDonald's owns McDonald's UK, but that doesn't mean that McDonald's UK follows US laws. It follows UK laws. The same applies to FOM, which is a British business, based in the UK, and complies with UK law. US laws don't apply to them, nor is there any mechanisms to apply them.

How is that hard to understand? How many more times do I need to explain it to you? If you set up a lemonade stand in the US then another in Spain, they'll follow the laws of where they're based respectively. They wouldn't bother be under the guise of US law.

this is not a contract issue.

Yes it is.

This is not about Andretti

Yes it is.

That question is in reality useless, since the NFL would love to have a British team.

Stop dodging the question.

and the NFL was found to be breaking British antitrust laws; I've got no problem with them being sued.

Interesting... So you think any country should be able to sue any company or sporting organisation for their business elsewhere. Cool. I'll be awaiting, say, Germany suing USPS and you cheering for it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

There are US laws for business. Most countries have them. Antitrust laws are not contingent on internal contracts. It's a law not a contract dispute. If you can acknowledge that it might be worthwhile to go further.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

US laws don't apply outside of the US.

I get that you're really into your nationalism and American exceptionalism over there, but surely you understand that.

US law is as relevant here as Japanese law.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Sigh.

US laws apply to anybody or anything on US Ground. That includes people, business, and things like money and banking.

If you want to practice monopolistic business practices in other parts of the world and exclude the US and U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement countries, that is up to you and the antitrust laws of the EU and Britain.

If this is your way of saying you understand this is not a contract matter, say so.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Exactly, and FOM isn't in the US, it's in the UK. I can show you a map if you like.

This really isn't complicated.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Exactly

So, it's not a contract issue

You are dead wrong about F1 being a foreign entity but suppose it is. Suppose it is incorporated in Britain instead of Delaware. Then it still can be indicted as was FIFA, a Swiss company, as this article explains.

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/27/why-fifa-is-being-prosecuted-in-the-us.html#:~:text=FIFA%20may%20be%20based%20in,some%20of%20its%20top%20officials.

BTW, the Feds won this case.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

It is a foreign entity, are you stupid? The UK is not in the US. I can show you a map if you like. How could you possibly argue that a business based in the UK isn't a foreign entity to the US.

Currie explained that CONCACAF’s headquarters has been in the United States—in New York and then Florida—for the entire time period included in the indictment.

Doesn't apply to FOM.

Also, this covers financial crimes in which American financial companies and a headquarters based in the US was involved.

Very different to FOM, a British company, the FIA, a French company, and teams (various countries) setting standards on who can join their private club.

Should the NFL be under the jurisdiction of the UK?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

OK, we'll end this right here. You obviously are on the edge. I'll block you for good measure.