How do you define "professional racing driver"?

Figure it out.
If you file it on your taxes, if you get a check for doing it, you know what I meant.

 

I always assumed that if someone paid you to drive and the majority of your income came from driving then you were a pro driver.

I count personal sponsorship under that. It's just a fact of life that today's drivers are also PR professionals.

 

Have been on track with people I'd pay not to drive. Kind of an inverse pro.

 

That's funny. There are certainly plenty of inverse pros at the top levels of sportscar racing. A Texas oil man comes to mind...

 

Oh, this is bringing back some memories...

CW

 

I should clarify: by "personal sponsorship" I mean company X paying you x amount to race for a team (even if that means they are paying the team for your spot).

If I sporsor myself, then I'm a "gentleman racer" IMHO.

 

Can a pro ever cease to be a pro? Meaning, what if a pro (by most accounts listed here) does all to meet the requirements, but then enjoys great fame and subsequent wealth and/or opportunities arise? For example: what if he goes from getting noticed, to getting paid, to getting paid handsomely to ultimately paying others to drive (Think NASCAR driver/owners) or someone like Barrichello now clearly helping fund his Indy ride? It seems weird that someone is a pro, then suddenly NOT, due to nothing more than success...but I get the general idea (I don't consider Gentleman Racers Pros either, though without them, there would be no "pros" as we generally all agree to define them)

 

I still maintain: if someone pays you to race, if someone calls you to race (and you don't have to bring your own funds), if you claim it on your taxes, or if you get a 1099, then I would consider you a pro, although the definition of 'pro' is really the latter two.

The IRS may only care about the last two, but I only consider you a 'pro' if you meet just one of the above, and the former two more than the latter two.

You can be a 'pro' - but 'pro' doesn't mean 'good'.

 

An address in Monte Carlo is another good indication.

BHW
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Are you making a living from it? Could it be considered your job to sit in that car and run faster than everyone else? Then you're a "professional racer". Doesn't matter who pays you to do it.

If you depend on any other job, you're an "amateur racer". If you're an actor doing racing on the side, you're an "amateur racer". If you're a doctor racing cars because it's fun, you're an "amateur racer".

If you're Michael Schumacher designing new brake calipers in Catia V5 on the side, you're an "amateur engineer".
If you're me, photographing the family (and other stuff) in your spare-time because it's fun (and saves the expense of paying a photographer to take pictures I can definitely do myself), you're an "amateur photographer"
If you're a politician participating in pornographic movies because you think it's fun, you're an "amateur pornstar"
If you have to ask if you can be considered a "professional", you probably can't

A "professional" is someone who does something for a profession.

 

The 1st and 3rd parts I agree with. The second I don't. There are several people I know who are paid to race (and should be) who need a "real" job in addition to driving so they can do stuff like pay rent and eat.

 

To my mind I see it as the following:

A professional:
- Makes their primary income from the driving or team owner/driver of a racing car. The income can come in the form of a salary from the team or it can be a percentage of sponsorship directed towards a salary. If the sponsorship comes from a family member then that is still ok provided that the individual is is no way out of pocket. This is no different than a business owner employing his son to pack boxes as his contribution has value to the company in the same way that the race sponsorship can be valuable to the company. Lots of kids of business owners get jobs that were not really otherwise on offer in the same way that lots of sponsorships take place that are tied to the recipient more than to the value they possess. That is a fact of life all over and it is no different in racing. Deal with it as it makes you no less a professional.

A semi-professional:
- Gets some income from racing but is not the primary source of income. All other rules of the pro apply.

An amateur:
- Pays to race out of pocket or out of a personal business.

 

A pro-driver is someone who drives and participates under contract and derives a substantial income from such driving or being known as a pro-driver.

In other words, someone who is either sought out and receives substantial compensation for his driving ability/services or drives under his own enterprise which creates a substantial income.

If we were to say "primary income" then that would exclude drivers like Schumi whose assets probably throw off more income than they earn each year from driving.

If someone sets out to race at a net expense to himself, then he is an enthusiast, however still an "amateur, "gentleman racer" or hobbyist etc.

Bringing sponsorships as part of a contract does not prevent one from being a professional; rather, it is a third party (sponsor) paying for a particular person to drive under its name. Now if a driver self-sponsors, then that is another story obviously.

 

Good point but the natural assumption here is that the other income is a direct function of his driving. Pro drivers have always tried to sell additional personal sponsorships. Think of Senna with Nacional or Schumacher with Dekra. Both personal income deals that even if they surpassed the income derrived from racing are only there because of the racing. Think of it as someone other than the team paying your salary.

 

I can't necessarily agree with your analysis 100%. A good case in point is Milka Duno who was supported by her family in the Indy Car series. A very UNprofessional driver imo and not deserving of being in a series at that level. If it had not been for her family's financial support she would never have made it to that level of racing and would by no means be considered a "professional driver."

 

+1

 

Rob:

Having represented a few Indy Car Drivers, and a whole bunch of motorcyclists, I must disagree. Very, very few drivers are paid to race. The system got screwed up with Fitapaldi. When he finished with F1 and came here, most of the drivers were paid to race. What he noticed was that there were Brazilians with money, and equal talent. Race teams loved him, they got talented people, who brought money, instead of talented people who they had to pay. Indeed, in today's world, if you look at most of the contracts, you'll see that a certain money of money is required to get into the car. Maybe not their money, maybe sponsorship money, but it's money that is being paid. Indeed, if I had to bet, I'd say that at least 50% of the starting grid of an Indy Car race is paid for by the driver, rather than the other way around.

As for F1, there are quite a few of the rides that are paid for by the driver. Indeed, Maldinato (sp?) is a Venezuelan and his country is paying for his ride (Chavez has his good points). In AMA Pietri's ride is also government paid for, and you'll see more and more of that. It's the sign of the times, and it isn't going to change anytime soon.

The short story is that racing has gotten so expensive that the team owners are looking for money everywhere.

Art

 

Yosh's second rider is a paid for ride. Don't know about Graves' guys, I suspect Herrin is not a paid for ride, but I don't know, Chuck and I don't talk very often, and he isn't going to tell me, since I represent his competition. Erick Buell's new team, May and the other rider are being paid. Steve Rapp is being piad, as is Chris Ulrich. After that, I think the balance is privateers. Up until the "great recession" there were very few paid for rides, the last one I knew about was Roberto Pietri's ride with Honda, he brought a current Yosh bike as his payment for the ride, gave Honda a look at the competition.

Art

 

"Maybe not their money, maybe sponsorship money, but it's money that is being paid."


A really important part of the profession of racing driver is finding money - any racing school will teach you that. If you bring sponsor money, IMO you are being paid to drive. Someone thinks enough of you to invest in your driving.

 

As awful a pill as it is to swallow, IF Milka Duno was paid by her 'sponsor' to race and it was the primary source of her 'income' then she would 'technically' have been a professional racing driver. We all know that she is a no talent waste that even with her money was excluded from events for being too slow so she may have fit the technical description of the term professional but certainly not the spirit of the term.

Where things get all messed up is that different people have different thresholds for what they consider a professional but I think that from a purely impartial perspective my first scenario a few posts back cover it. I agree that it should be a term of endearment for that incredibly narrow spectrum of the grid that is there and in demand. But even them getting to that point had them as 'pay drivers' at one time or another. Just think of how many drivers in F1 are WANTED regardless of their connections or personal sponsorships. The guys that several teams would fight over to have in their car. You could probably count the number on one hand.

 

lets say, if you get your income out of driving fee from the team, or from your own sponsors, and there is no other (main) incomsource.
that all folks...