Jun.2 (GMM) Concerns that Formula 1’s new Madrid street circuit could miss its September debut appear to be fading, although a legal dispute is now unfolding behind the scenes.
An FIA delegation led by race director Rui Marques and the FIA’s Jorge Abed visited the future Madring circuit this week to inspect progress on the project.
According to Spanish reports, the officials toured the venue by bus and were shown the latest developments by race promoters, just over three months before Madrid is due to host its first grand prix on September 13.
The visit comes amid months of speculation that construction could fall behind schedule.
However, promoter representative Luis Garcia Abad insists the project remains on track.
“We are progressing well, as planned, and we will be ready to organise a test event before the grand prix and carry out all the final checks with Formula 1 and the FIA before the race in September,” he said.
One of the biggest recent milestones was the first paving work on the spectacular banked ‘Monumental’ corner complex, which is expected to become the circuit’s signature feature. Ticket sales are also reportedly strong despite premium prices.
Behind the scenes, however, a separate battle is brewing.
German publication f1-insider.com reports that the Cologne Regional Court is handling a dispute between Italian circuit design company Dromo and the German Tilke Group over intellectual property rights connected to the Madrid project.
Dromo, headed by track designer Jarno Zaffelli, originally developed the circuit concept. But according to the report, promoter IFEMA Madrid later turned to Hermann Tilke’s company to continue and complete the project.
The dispute centres on whether elements of the circuit design are protected by copyright.
A preliminary injunction has reportedly been issued preventing certain planning documents from being reproduced while the broader legal case proceeds.
At the heart of the disagreement is whether a Formula 1 circuit constitutes a creative architectural work or is primarily the product of technical, safety and regulatory requirements.
The landmark ‘Monumental’ banking has become a particular focus of the dispute, with both sides claiming differing levels of responsibility for its final design.