Revolut to become title partner of Audi F1 team
The fast-growing London-based fintech company was valued at $45 billion last year through a secondary share sale to new and existing investors.
Swiss-based Sauber are becoming the factory Audi team in 2026, when Formula One starts a new engine era with major rule changes and an 11th team on the grid with the arrival of Cadillac.
Jonathan Wheatley, principal of the Audi team, said the deal had been put together in less than four months and had obvious benefits for both sides.
"If you imagine we need to engage with our fans, we need a partner that's going to help us do that," Wheatley told Reuters in a video call.
"We need to expand hugely into this incredible global space that Formula One is in at the moment, and we need to become the most attractive team in Formula One."
Wheatley said the deal reflected Audi's brand strength and was a "good news story for Formula One."
"It's the Audi magnet that's drawing a lot of people here right now," he said, speaking from the team headquarters in Hinwil, Switzerland.
Revolut has more than 55 million customers but has no physical branches. It gained a banking licence in Britain in 2024, after a three-year wait, and has global expansion plans.
Antoine Le Nel, Revolut's chief marketing officer, gave no financial details of the F1 partnership but said the company was in for the long run with Audi and aiming for 100 million customers by 2027.
He said Revolut had been looking for a platform to help the company build on its expansion.
"I think we have a true opportunity to really bring F1 to a huge audience," he told Reuters.
"From a retail perspective as well as a business perspective, I think there's going to be a lot of opportunities for us to connect the fan base to the sport through the Revolut platform."
Le Nel said Audi taking on the established teams in Formula One was like Revolut competing against traditional banks.
"If you look at Audi, very premium German brand dominating its market, it's where we want to be," he said. "It's a way for Revolut to elevate and get to where Audi has been for such a long time."
Audi said Revolut Business would be extensively integrated into the team's financial operations.
Sauber are sixth in the 10 team championship ahead of this weekend's Hungarian Grand Prix and have scored in their last five races.
German driver Nico Hulkenberg celebrated his first F1 podium at Silverstone this month, finishing third in the British Grand Prix in a major boost for the team.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
27 minutes ago
- Spectator
The rise of rugby's Nepo Babies
Julie Burchill may not have coined the phrase 'Nepo Baby', but my Coffee House colleague certainly has established a reputation as a deliciously mordant chronicler of the phenomenon. The babies are everywhere, although as Burchill points out, 'there are some professions in which the far reach of the dead hand of nepotism strikes me as worse than others'. Modelling and the media appear to be jobs where nepotism is more important than talent. (Incidentally, before you ask, I am not related to John, Bob or even Dennis Mortimer, the former Aston Villa midfielder.) But there is another profession where having the right surname seems to be increasingly handy, and that's top-level rugby. These days the sport isn't just about power and pace, but apparently who you are related to. The British and Irish Lions play their third and final Test against Australia today and among the 23 players selected by coach Andy Farrell is Owen, his son. In his heyday Owen Farrell was a very fine player. He made his England debut in 2012 and won the last of 112 caps at the 2023 World Cup. The following year he signed a lucrative deal with a French club, Racing 92 of Paris, but it wasn't a success. Farrell quit the club halfway through his two-year deal and returned to England in June with the jeers of the French ringing his ears. 'Un flop', as one rugby website remarked. In fairness to the 33-year-old Farrell, his season was disrupted by injury – no surprise given his age – and since January he managed to start only six matches. This didn't bother his dad when he needed a replacement for the injured Elliot Daly, who broke his arm in the Lions' second match of their Australian tour. He drafted Owen into the squad despite his lack of form this season, and the fact he hadn't played international rugby for nearly two years. There were plenty of alternatives – Scots, Irish and Englishmen at the top of their game – but Andy selected his son. He justified it on the grounds of his 'experience', but Lions should be selected on form and fitness. Dan Biggar, the former Wales and Lions fly-half turned pundit, said he was 'struggling to get to grips' with the sense of it. Owen Farrell isn't the first player to seem to benefit from having his old man as head coach. There's Dan Lancaster, who, like Farrell, signed for Racing 92 last summer. Racing 92 are one of rugby's heavyweights – European Cup runners-up in 2018 and 2020 – yet Dan Lancaster arrived from Ealing Trailfinders, who play in the second division of English rugby. The French press were surprised. Did Dan's arrival at Racing have anything to do with the fact his dad, Stuart, is head coach? When the question was put to Jacky Lorenzetti, Racing's owner, he replied: 'Nepotism, why not, but let's not get too carried away' Stuart Lancaster (who coached England a decade ago) was sacked midway through the season and in June Dan left Racing. One of rugby's first apparent nepo babies was the Welshman Thomas Young, handed a professional contract in 2014 by his dad, Dai, when he coached London Wasps in England's Premiership. 'When things didn't work out at Cardiff Blues… my dad gave me an opportunity to come here,' said Thomas. Dai made his son club captain in 2019, a few months before he left Wasps by mutual consent. Thomas subsequently flew the Wasps' nest to rejoin his dad who was then coaching Cardiff. There also seem to be rugby Nepos in Australia and South Africa. Robert du Preez was accused of 'nepotism' in 2019 when he coached the Sharks in Durban. Du Preez dismissed his critics as 'cockroaches', although he never came up with a good reason why he kept selecting his son Robert junior at fly-half instead of the clearly superior Curwin Bosch. There are also players whose dads aren't coaches but who seem to still benefit from having a famous father. Among them are Adam Hastings, son of Scotland legend Gavin; Tom de Glanville, whose dad Phil captained England in the 1990s; Jack Bracken, son of Kyran, a World Cup winner with England in 2003, and Reuben Logan, whose dad, Kenny, played for Scotland and whose mum is Gabby, the BBC sports presenter who represented Wales in gymnastics. Premiership club Sale Sharks recently signed the 20-year-old Reuben and the club's director of rugby, Alex Sanderson, said: 'He has got two ex-professional sporting parents. That stands for a lot for me in terms of when you are that young.' Rugby's Nepos are different from their media and modelling peers in that they have given blood, toil, tears and sweat in pursuit of their goal. They are all talented, disciplined and admirable young men. But professional rugby is a cut-throat business with a surfeit of talented youngsters all vying for a contract with a small number of top-flight clubs. A report in 2020 in the Guardian about the competition for contracts in the English Premiership stated: 'One experienced Premiership academy manager has said he believes up to 20 per cent of the country's most talented teenage players each year are being overlooked or blithely ignored'. It apparently helps to get noticed if you have a famous dad or, even better, if he picks the team.
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Heathrow's third runway plan is wrong – and not just because of noise and pollution
Here we go again. To say there is a deja vu aspect to the latest proposal to build Heathrow's third runway is an understatement. For reasons that are not clear, Sir Keir Starmer has determined the airport's expansion to be a key plank in the government's economic growth strategy. Seemingly, he did not take into account the issues that grounded the plans in the past, as far back as 1968 – namely, Heathrow's unfortunate and unavoidable proximity to the M25, the rivers and their valleys that cross that part of west London, the additional noise pollution, and the need for improved and costly transport links to and from the centre of the capital that will result from the vast uplift in passengers. On the constant sound from the increased number of planes landing and taking off, the prime minister will insist that great technological strides have been made in curbing the din. It is true that new aircraft are less noisy. However, they are still extremely audible, there will be more of them, and they will be flying over a heavily residential area. As for the rest, nothing has altered fundamentally, environmentally and logistically, since Heathrow last submitted a scheme, pre-Covid. Inflation means the bill is now an eye-watering £49bn. The bill, ultimately, will be borne by the air passenger, and Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world. Will the airlines and their customers stomach at least a doubling in charges? There is the thorny problem, too, of public transport to and from London. The London mayor will be expected to find a way to enable an extra 60 million people a year to use Heathrow. Transport for London is strapped for cash, struggling to upgrade the Tube network. How the additional demand will be met is not clear. What has shifted as well is the nature of air travel. Post-pandemic, business travel is down and looks unlikely to recover – that, certainly, is what the industry is saying. During the outbreak, holding meetings remotely came into its own and employers took a hard look at their budgets – Zoom or Teams often represent a better alternative in executive time and expense. That therefore raises a major doubt about one of the main claims made for Heathrow's extension. It is said to be necessary to enhance London and the UK's standing in the business world, but how, if the commercial users are not there? There has been movement too, and not of the positive kind, in attitude towards Heathrow the operator. The power outage that shut down the plum in Starmer's vision for resurgence and global acclaim was a shocking episode; it not only highlighted a neglected infrastructure but also a failure of management. Thomas Woldbye, who is seeking permission to build this national project, is the same boss who slept through the night as Britain's busiest airport ceased to function. Heathrow's reputation in the sector was already poor, but this took it to a new low. Woldbye has an idea that is different from the one previously suggested, which is to build the third runway over the M25, taking the motorway underneath – and all without any disruption to road users. This is fanciful even without a track record that hardly inspires confidence. Which raises another question. Why? Why should Heathrow as a company get to preside over the airport's improvement and reap the benefits? If we're all agreed that it is a vital national asset, holding a pivotal place in the economy, then why should the incumbent be in charge, not to mention entrusted, with its development? Those who wax lyrical about Heathrow's importance like to reminisce about how Britain led the transformation of international aviation. Boosting the airport is seen as completing that journey. It is the case that we once did. That was in the Margaret Thatcher era, when British Airways was freed from the shackles of state ownership. Thatcher did more than that, though. She enabled and encouraged competition, giving a steer to the challengers and disruptors, notably to Richard Branson at Virgin and Michael Bishop at British Midland. The newly privatised BA was forced to raise its game, and together, these three set new standards. There appears to be an assumption that Woldbye's company must be given the job. But there is another option. Surinder Arora, the self-made billionaire who has masterminded the building of leading hotels at Heathrow and other airports and is a substantial Heathrow landowner, has his own remedy. His is much cheaper, envisaging a shorter runway that does not affect the M25. It is easy to dismiss Arora. But he is popular with the airlines, he rails rightly against Heathrow's pricing, and he knows a thing or two about customer service. He also possesses heavyweight advisers in the shape of Bechtel, the US engineering, construction and project management giant. He deserves to be taken seriously. Heathrow needs a competitor. Likewise, if neither the airport operator nor Arora is selected and the third runway is again kiboshed, then surely serious thought must be given to expanding rival airports. Heathrow has been resting on its laurels for too long. As for Starmer, he perhaps should ask himself how it is that someone who professes to be forensic legally is so capable of displaying rushes of blood to the head politically. Giving Heathrow such prominence smacks of impetuousness. He's done it and has been left with an almighty headache.
New Statesman
28 minutes ago
- New Statesman
How Britain lost the status game
Photo by Stefan Rousseau/AFP I've always been a bit puzzled by the 1956 Suez Crisis. The idea of Britain, France and Israel plotting together but being defeated by the honest, righteous Americans does feel, nearly a lifetime later, a little strange. But the most baffling thing about the Suez Crisis is the idea that it was a crisis. It's always described as this a great national humiliation which ruined a prime minister, the sort of watershed to inspire national soul-searching, state-of-the-nation plays and a whole library of books. And yet, compared to the sort of thing which literally every other European country had to deal with at some point in the 20th century, it's nothing. Britain was not invaded or occupied; Britain did not see its population starve. Britain simply learned that it was no longer top dog. That's all. The event and the reaction don't seem to go together. But this, of course, is to see the world from the perspective of today. Now, we all know that Britain cannot just do what it wants – that the US is the far more powerful player. At the start of 1956, though, large chunks of the map were still coloured British pink (or, come to that, French bleu), and the median opinion at home was that this was broadly a good thing. Suez was the moment when the loss of status we now date to 1945 came home. I wonder, in my darker moments, if we're going through something similar now – a less dramatic decline, perhaps, but a potentially more ruinous one. The loss of empire, after all, was mainly an issue for the pride of the political classes. Today's decline in status affects everyone. Consider the number of areas in which the current British government seems utterly helpless before the might of much bigger forces. It's not quite true to say that Rachel Reeves has no room for manoeuvre – breaking a manifesto pledge and raising one of the core taxes remains an option, albeit one that would be painful for government and taxpayer alike. But her borrowing and spending options are constrained by the sense of a bond market both far flightier than it once was, thanks to an increase in short term investors, and less willing, post-Truss, to give Britain the benefit of the doubt. The thing that much of the public would like Reeves to do – spend more, without raising taxes – is a thing it is by no means clear she has the power to do. Over in foreign policy, Keir Starmer has offended sensibilities by making nice with someone entirely unfit to be president of the United States, and whose actions place him a lot closer to the dictators of the 20th century than to Eisenhower or JFK. The problem for Starmer is that saying this out loud would likely result in ruinous tariffs, or the collapse of NATO before an alternative system for the defence of Europe can be prepared, or both. Again, he has no space to do what his voters want him to do. In the same vein, consider the anger about Britain's failure to act to prevent the horrors still unfolding in Gaza. It is not to imply the government has handled things well to suggest that at least part of the problem is that – 69 years on from Suez – the government of Israel doesn't give a fig about what the government of Britain thinks. The things the public wants may be outside the realm of things the government can actually deliver. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Even in less overtly political realms, the British state feels helplessly at the mercy of global forces beyond its control. The domestic TV industry, a huge British export, is in crisis thanks to the streamers. AI will change the world, we're told, and it's very possible that isn't a good thing: and what is Westminster supposed to do about that? And with which faculties? In all these areas and a thousand more, people want their government to do something to change the direction of events, and it is not at all obvious it can. Ever since 2016, British politics has been plagued by a faintly Australian assumption that, if a prime minister is not delivering, you should kick them out and bring in the next one. That is not the worst impulse in a democracy. But what if Britain is so changed that delivery is not possible? Researchers have found that social status affects the immune system of certain types of monkey – that the stress of lower status can, quite literally, kill. It already looks plausible the electorate might roll the dice on Nigel Farage. This is terrifying enough. But when it turns out he can't take back control either, but only trash what's there – what then? [See more: Trump in the wilderness] Related
