Five weeks ago, en route to Austin, I was musing about what F1 could do to improve its appeal to the all-important US market. The sport has consistently marginalised itself from the US by being too expensive for the market it is trying to enter, and because it has lacked points of interest for US consumers. I cited two assets that F1 is currently wasting: Alexander Rossi, the only American driver within realistic range of F1, who came so close to being an F1 driver on a string of occasions, only to be kicked in the teeth on each occasion. Only a sadist would have enjoyed watching Alex’s misfortunes.

The second asset was the “Swiss Miss”, Simona de Silvestro, who had enormous potential for the sport, because not only is she a women who could competitively in F1, she is also a name in US racing circles.

And guess what? Five weeks later F1 has lost the pair of them, both now working as best they can to find drives in IndyCar, while F1 concentrates its efforts on strategically-unimportant spots such as Qatar and Azerbaijan (combined population being about half the number of people living in the New York metropolitan area – and most of them far poorer).

I don’t know about CVC Capital Partners (and I don’t care), but I am disappointed that once again my favourite sport has failed to deliver any long-term thinking. What is it that F1 stakeholders want? Is it access to the oil-rich hundreds in Baku and Doha? Or might it be wiser to go after 300 million consumers, who just spent a “disappointing” $50.9 billion shopping in the course of the Thanksgiving weekend? I don’t think you need to go to Eton and Oxford to figure that one out…

Grand Prix racing is basically bling for the oil-rich nations, making them feel that they are on the world map. The problem is that this bling is getting more expensive as the price of oil heads downward. Why? Because when the price of oil falls, the currencies of the oil-dependent tend to follow the trend. On Monday, for example, the Russian rouble took a four percent hit in its value against the dollar – in one day – and each percentage point it drops is likely to be a percentage point added to the cost of an F1 deal… The rouble is down nearly 40 percent against the dollar since January, which means that the cost of the race in Sochi is up the same percentage (assuming the negotiation was done in dollars). Izvestia reports today that the Russian space programme is grinding to a halt because they cannot afford to import parts for their space ships.

But you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see the problem…

Goldman Sachs recently issued a report predicting a continuing downward trend in oil prices because of rising production that is outstripping demand because of the state of the global economy.

Having said that, these oil-spurting outposts will still pay top dollar, even if they know that the US got two races for $1 each. Bling is bling.

But what would a properly developed F1 get from the US? It is an enthralling question. The States are reckoned to account for 70 percent of all sports merchandise sales in the world and its TV sports deals are bigger as well. As an idea, the current NASCAR TV deals are worth more per year, just in the US, than F1’s global earnings. The average race attendance at 33 events a year is close to100,000, and 40 percent of them are women. Half the kids in the US between the ages of seven and 17 say that they are NASCAR fans, while F1 seems to be deeply attached to the middle aged and to Rolex-wearing pensioners.

Now you can argue that there are different demographics for the two racing series, but that is not the point, what I am trying to highlight is the potential that exists for the sport in the US, something that all the sponsors know and want to tap into. Yet all F1 does is ignore serious projects that offer real potential and dream of hitting the jackpot in Las Vegas… A town where most people end up as losers.

I have tried to see logic in Formula One thinking for many years and the only conclusion I can reach (apart from a possible distaste for all things American) is that either they need more flexible thinkers involved, or they are leaving the potential untapped so that they have something to sell to the next lot of golden goose stranglers who will come along…

All I can say is that if it is an exit strategy, I fully support the use of it…

…as quickly as possible.