Should F1 drop the FIA ?
Discussion
In light of the continued nonsense being conducted by Jean Napoleon with the sport being pulled into several directions, it would be quite straight forward and cost effective for Liberty to establish it's own governing body, as other sports have previously done.
Should Liberty drop the Paris interference ?
JANUARY 29, 2018
F1 at risk of political turmoil
Toto Wolff says he misses F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone's ability to get things done.
The Mercedes boss says Liberty Media has been in a "honeymoon period" since succeeding the Ecclestone era, but many are now predicting a fiery showdown with top teams including Ferrari.
One criticism from Wolff is that while the Ecclestone era was contentious, he would regularly pull off lucrative deals.
"Bernie invented this sport so to speak, and he had strong qualities to increase sales," he told DPA news agency.
"If I picked one point, it would be the ability to complete deals that he had."
On the other hand, Wolff pointed out that Liberty has made many plans and ideas public, but the real test will be putting them into action.
"We've heard many interesting things," he said. "But the difficulty is not having good ideas, but actually implementing them."
For instance, Liberty has unveiled plans for new engine rules and a budget cap, but Ferrari is already threatening to quit.
"Right now, many in formula one are moving in different directions," former F1 driver Gerhard Berger told Auto Motor und Sport.
"You have Mercedes and Ferrari on one side, Ross Brawn and the Americans on the other, and the FIA in the middle," he explained.
"In the good old days there was unity between Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley, so it was hard for the teams to have an influence. So at the moment there is the danger of great political disruptions," said Wolff.
Should Liberty drop the Paris interference ?
JANUARY 29, 2018
F1 at risk of political turmoil
Toto Wolff says he misses F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone's ability to get things done.
The Mercedes boss says Liberty Media has been in a "honeymoon period" since succeeding the Ecclestone era, but many are now predicting a fiery showdown with top teams including Ferrari.
One criticism from Wolff is that while the Ecclestone era was contentious, he would regularly pull off lucrative deals.
"Bernie invented this sport so to speak, and he had strong qualities to increase sales," he told DPA news agency.
"If I picked one point, it would be the ability to complete deals that he had."
On the other hand, Wolff pointed out that Liberty has made many plans and ideas public, but the real test will be putting them into action.
"We've heard many interesting things," he said. "But the difficulty is not having good ideas, but actually implementing them."
For instance, Liberty has unveiled plans for new engine rules and a budget cap, but Ferrari is already threatening to quit.
"Right now, many in formula one are moving in different directions," former F1 driver Gerhard Berger told Auto Motor und Sport.
"You have Mercedes and Ferrari on one side, Ross Brawn and the Americans on the other, and the FIA in the middle," he explained.
"In the good old days there was unity between Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley, so it was hard for the teams to have an influence. So at the moment there is the danger of great political disruptions," said Wolff.
Of course Ecclestone was good for the big teams as well as being good for Ecclestone.
He got things done, and there's no arguing about that. He got the grid to the state it is in now for a start. He got us races that were impossible for the organiser to make a profit on. Ecclestone was short-termism personified.
The problem for Liberty is Ecclestone's legacy, and we read that on this forum time after time.
Should they opt out of FIA control? It's an option. There's always the ACO. Do you know the name of the chap in control of it? No? Then that's a positive.
The FIA has little interest in F1 as its income from it was removed by Mosley. The only direct income is the licensing.
It is difficult to believe that anyone should think that there was any unity between Ecclestone and Mosley. Mosley was Ecclestone's front man. After the debacle of Indianapolis, the relationship was fractured. I've often wondered who was the main agitator for Mosley being removed. It would have to be someone who 'got things done'.
He got things done, and there's no arguing about that. He got the grid to the state it is in now for a start. He got us races that were impossible for the organiser to make a profit on. Ecclestone was short-termism personified.
The problem for Liberty is Ecclestone's legacy, and we read that on this forum time after time.
Should they opt out of FIA control? It's an option. There's always the ACO. Do you know the name of the chap in control of it? No? Then that's a positive.
The FIA has little interest in F1 as its income from it was removed by Mosley. The only direct income is the licensing.
It is difficult to believe that anyone should think that there was any unity between Ecclestone and Mosley. Mosley was Ecclestone's front man. After the debacle of Indianapolis, the relationship was fractured. I've often wondered who was the main agitator for Mosley being removed. It would have to be someone who 'got things done'.
Car-Matt said:
F1 cannot drop the FIA
If the teams left and formed another series the FIA would still run an F1 Series, the breakaway would find it very very hard to establish themselves and prove commercial value
If I remember correctly from the last time Ferrari wasn't getting its way and threatened to throw its toys out of the param any breakaway series would struggle to find drivers too. Certainly for the higher levels of racing license there's meant to be a "You can only race in series sanctioned by the FIA or one of it's national affiliate bodies.", with the clear message "And if you do you'll lose your FIA license and won't be getting it back any time soon, excluding you from all FIA/national affiliate series.".If the teams left and formed another series the FIA would still run an F1 Series, the breakaway would find it very very hard to establish themselves and prove commercial value
Sure you might get some top drivers near the end of their careers who are planning on retiring and just in it for the money and some second tier drivers who know they aren't good-enough to make F1 but would you get any of the current and next generation of top drivers willing to risk everything on a series that could only last 1 or 2 seasons...?
angrymoby said:
indeed & no one would 'win' if F1 split ...see Indycar /Cart/ IRL
Not suggesting a split.Suggesting a wholesale new governing body for F1.
The FIA is a liability.
Liberty owns F1.
FIA does not own anything. It's only usefulness is rubber stamping insurance policies
Insurance policies can be negotiated directly.
Edited by sparta6 on Tuesday 30th January 16:21
sparta6 said:
Not suggesting a split.
Suggesting a wholesale new governing body for F1.
The FIA is a liability.
Liberty owns F1.
FIA does not own anything. It's only usefulness is rubber stamping insurance policies
Insurance policies can be negotiated directly.
The FIA owns the F1 world championship.Suggesting a wholesale new governing body for F1.
The FIA is a liability.
Liberty owns F1.
FIA does not own anything. It's only usefulness is rubber stamping insurance policies
Insurance policies can be negotiated directly.
Edited by sparta6 on Tuesday 30th January 16:21
Liberty own the commercial and promotion rights to the championship.
rallycross said:
Todt should be fired for failure to do his job
I'd be interested to know how you determine or define that failure.Bare in mind that FiA doesn't denote Formula One Association; F1 is just one of many championships the FiA administers as well as representing the interests of member organisations and promoting road safety and mobility for motorists around the world. The NcAP system is of the FIA's doing.
F1 is of course it's highest profile 'asset' so it's natural that this attracts the greatest profile for the FIA but I really think you'd struggle to suggest Todt has failed in his role as president of the FIA.
StevieBee said:
rallycross said:
Todt should be fired for failure to do his job
I'd be interested to know how you determine or define that failure.Bare in mind that FiA doesn't denote Formula One Association; F1 is just one of many championships the FiA administers as well as representing the interests of member organisations and promoting road safety and mobility for motorists around the world. The NcAP system is of the FIA's doing.
F1 is of course it's highest profile 'asset' so it's natural that this attracts the greatest profile for the FIA but I really think you'd struggle to suggest Todt has failed in his role as president of the FIA.
There's nothing to stop the ACO from running F1 in the same way as it runs Le Mans and other, mainly similar, series.
During the time of Mosley there were threats that F1 would leave the FIA, and a number of organisations, from the German 'section' of the FIA to the Caravan Club, left the FIA. This dropped the income of the FIA. The pressure from bodies saying they would ignore the FIA decisions was given by some as the main reason he was dumped.
For reasons undisclosed, during Mosley's time in charge F1 stopped paying the FIA anything other than day to day work. In other words, there was no steady income although expenses could be charged. F1 used to be the largest single contributor to the FIA.
Todt has no role in F1 other than that granted to him by Liberty. They could ignore him.
Given the two previous blokes in charge of the FIA, Todt has got to be seen as something of a breath of fresh air. There is little in the way of politics generated by the FIA - not that it could do much.
The FIA police licenses. It charges a fair bit for them, upping the cost once it stopped getting money directly from F1 - for whatever reason.
In a sense Liberty 'needs' the FIA. Their function needs to be performed. The problem is that it has lost much of its power.
Todt has tried to generate income from different sources, which I'd assume was one of the main needs. He's tried to boost rallying and is pushing other series, but there's little in the way of income from them. DTM, for instance, uses the German version of the RAC to run it. The FIA 'recognises' it but had little input. I believe it is affiliated in some way, but not directly.
I would suggest there needs to be some control over Liberty, a third party that stops either they or the manufacturers gaining total authority. The FIA seems unable to perform that role other than safety.
The FIA and Todt should be like the ACO; something that everyone's heard of but don't really know what they do.
Todt is in a difficult position. He will service those sides of the FIA which generate income first.
Derek Smith said:
F1 isn't as 'asset' of the FIA. It doesn't own it in any way. It gains no income from it. It is the legislative body because the owners of F1, Liberty, use it as such.
There's nothing to stop the ACO from running F1 in the same way as it runs Le Mans and other, mainly similar, series.
During the time of Mosley there were threats that F1 would leave the FIA, and a number of organisations, from the German 'section' of the FIA to the Caravan Club, left the FIA. This dropped the income of the FIA. The pressure from bodies saying they would ignore the FIA decisions was given by some as the main reason he was dumped.
For reasons undisclosed, during Mosley's time in charge F1 stopped paying the FIA anything other than day to day work. In other words, there was no steady income although expenses could be charged. F1 used to be the largest single contributor to the FIA.
Todt has no role in F1 other than that granted to him by Liberty. They could ignore him.
Given the two previous blokes in charge of the FIA, Todt has got to be seen as something of a breath of fresh air. There is little in the way of politics generated by the FIA - not that it could do much.
The FIA police licenses. It charges a fair bit for them, upping the cost once it stopped getting money directly from F1 - for whatever reason.
In a sense Liberty 'needs' the FIA. Their function needs to be performed. The problem is that it has lost much of its power.
Todt has tried to generate income from different sources, which I'd assume was one of the main needs. He's tried to boost rallying and is pushing other series, but there's little in the way of income from them. DTM, for instance, uses the German version of the RAC to run it. The FIA 'recognises' it but had little input. I believe it is affiliated in some way, but not directly.
I would suggest there needs to be some control over Liberty, a third party that stops either they or the manufacturers gaining total authority. The FIA seems unable to perform that role other than safety.
The FIA and Todt should be like the ACO; something that everyone's heard of but don't really know what they do.
Todt is in a difficult position. He will service those sides of the FIA which generate income first.
You are talking nonsense again Derek.There's nothing to stop the ACO from running F1 in the same way as it runs Le Mans and other, mainly similar, series.
During the time of Mosley there were threats that F1 would leave the FIA, and a number of organisations, from the German 'section' of the FIA to the Caravan Club, left the FIA. This dropped the income of the FIA. The pressure from bodies saying they would ignore the FIA decisions was given by some as the main reason he was dumped.
For reasons undisclosed, during Mosley's time in charge F1 stopped paying the FIA anything other than day to day work. In other words, there was no steady income although expenses could be charged. F1 used to be the largest single contributor to the FIA.
Todt has no role in F1 other than that granted to him by Liberty. They could ignore him.
Given the two previous blokes in charge of the FIA, Todt has got to be seen as something of a breath of fresh air. There is little in the way of politics generated by the FIA - not that it could do much.
The FIA police licenses. It charges a fair bit for them, upping the cost once it stopped getting money directly from F1 - for whatever reason.
In a sense Liberty 'needs' the FIA. Their function needs to be performed. The problem is that it has lost much of its power.
Todt has tried to generate income from different sources, which I'd assume was one of the main needs. He's tried to boost rallying and is pushing other series, but there's little in the way of income from them. DTM, for instance, uses the German version of the RAC to run it. The FIA 'recognises' it but had little input. I believe it is affiliated in some way, but not directly.
I would suggest there needs to be some control over Liberty, a third party that stops either they or the manufacturers gaining total authority. The FIA seems unable to perform that role other than safety.
The FIA and Todt should be like the ACO; something that everyone's heard of but don't really know what they do.
Todt is in a difficult position. He will service those sides of the FIA which generate income first.
The FIA owns the FIA Formula one world championship
This is on the first page of the sporting regulations.
FIA said:
The FIA will organise the FIA Formula One World Championship (the Championship) which is the property of the FIA and comprises two titles of World Champion, one for drivers and one for constructors. It consists of the Formula One Grand Prix races which are included in the Formula One calendar and in respect of which the ASNs and organisers have signed organisation agreements with the FIA. All the participating parties (FIA, ASNs, organisers, competitors and circuits) undertake to apply as well as observe the rules governing the Championship and must hold FIA Super Licences which are issued to drivers, competitors, officials, organisers and circuits.
The FIA gain income from various fees. The entrants (teams) have to pay a fee to enter the championship.FIA said:
ENTRY FEES FOR THE 2018 FIA FORMULA ONE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP
i) The winner of the 2017 World Championship for Constructors will be required to pay a basic fee of US$516,128 plus US$6194 for each point gained in the 2017 World Championship for Constructors.
ii) Every other competitor will be required to pay a basic fee of US$516,128 plus US$5161 for each point that competitor gained in the 2017 World Championship for Constructors.
In both cases the basic fee is due at the time of the application and the remainder by 30 November of the year prior to the year to which this application relates.
So Mercedes will have to pay the FIA $516,128 + $4,137,592 = $4,653,720 to enter the 2018 championship.i) The winner of the 2017 World Championship for Constructors will be required to pay a basic fee of US$516,128 plus US$6194 for each point gained in the 2017 World Championship for Constructors.
ii) Every other competitor will be required to pay a basic fee of US$516,128 plus US$5161 for each point that competitor gained in the 2017 World Championship for Constructors.
In both cases the basic fee is due at the time of the application and the remainder by 30 November of the year prior to the year to which this application relates.
Liberty own the commercial rights, which is where the big money is, but the FIA do receive a very large payment from the teams to enter the championship.
There are 10 team, 9 + the winner, the fees from them total
$4,653,720 (Mercedes)
+
9 x $516,128 = $4,645,152 (other teams base entry fee)
+
830 x $5,161 = $4,283,630 (number of points the other teams scored)
Total income just from the team entry fees = $13,582,502
jsf said:
You are talking nonsense again Derek.
The FIA owns the FIA Formula one world championship
Not the sort of language for this forum one might have thought. Read what I posted more carefully and perhaps your terminology might well mellow.The FIA owns the FIA Formula one world championship
Liberty can move F1 from the jurisdiction of the FIA. Indeed Ecclestone threatened it although it was probably nothing more than that, a threat. Practically it would need a regulatory body and the ACO would do quite well. So one wonder how the FIA can own something that can be removed at the click of fingers.
They regulate the drivers' championship and the constructors' championship but they will be empty if F1 moves to, for instance, the ACO.
I meant to say The FIA has little interest in F1 as its income from it was removed by Mosley. The only direct income is the licensing.
In this case I did not go into much detail but it seems some people get confused. The FIA get no direct income from Liberty. They get it by licensing. The WDC and thew WCC are different matters.
If you want a friendly discussion then I'm happy to take part. Perhaps a question, such as 'why is this on the FIA website' would have got a quick, simple and polite reply.
Derek Smith said:
Liberty can move F1 from the jurisdiction of the FIA...it would need a regulatory body and the ACO would do quite well.
Umm, are the ACO not just a French national body for (among other things) motorsport and so an FIA affiliate? Hence why while the WEC is organised by the ACO it is owned, and sanctioned by the FIA, and why the ACO added chicanes to the Mulsanne (FIA regulation on maximum single straight length).Derek Smith said:
jsf said:
You are talking nonsense again Derek.
The FIA owns the FIA Formula one world championship
Not the sort of language for this forum one might have thought. Read what I posted more carefully and perhaps your terminology might well mellow.The FIA owns the FIA Formula one world championship
Liberty can move F1 from the jurisdiction of the FIA. Indeed Ecclestone threatened it although it was probably nothing more than that, a threat. Practically it would need a regulatory body and the ACO would do quite well. So one wonder how the FIA can own something that can be removed at the click of fingers.
They regulate the drivers' championship and the constructors' championship but they will be empty if F1 moves to, for instance, the ACO.
I meant to say The FIA has little interest in F1 as its income from it was removed by Mosley. The only direct income is the licensing.
In this case I did not go into much detail but it seems some people get confused. The FIA get no direct income from Liberty. They get it by licensing. The WDC and thew WCC are different matters.
If you want a friendly discussion then I'm happy to take part. Perhaps a question, such as 'why is this on the FIA website' would have got a quick, simple and polite reply.
Derek Smith said:
Not the sort of language for this forum one might have thought. Read what I posted more carefully and perhaps your terminology might well mellow.
Liberty can move F1 from the jurisdiction of the FIA. Indeed Ecclestone threatened it although it was probably nothing more than that, a threat. Practically it would need a regulatory body and the ACO would do quite well. So one wonder how the FIA can own something that can be removed at the click of fingers.
They regulate the drivers' championship and the constructors' championship but they will be empty if F1 moves to, for instance, the ACO.
I meant to say The FIA has little interest in F1 as its income from it was removed by Mosley. The only direct income is the licensing.
In this case I did not go into much detail but it seems some people get confused. The FIA get no direct income from Liberty. They get it by licensing. The WDC and thew WCC are different matters.
If you want a friendly discussion then I'm happy to take part. Perhaps a question, such as 'why is this on the FIA website' would have got a quick, simple and polite reply.
I read what you wrote Derek, it's nonsense. Is telling people they are posting nonsense now offensive?Liberty can move F1 from the jurisdiction of the FIA. Indeed Ecclestone threatened it although it was probably nothing more than that, a threat. Practically it would need a regulatory body and the ACO would do quite well. So one wonder how the FIA can own something that can be removed at the click of fingers.
They regulate the drivers' championship and the constructors' championship but they will be empty if F1 moves to, for instance, the ACO.
I meant to say The FIA has little interest in F1 as its income from it was removed by Mosley. The only direct income is the licensing.
In this case I did not go into much detail but it seems some people get confused. The FIA get no direct income from Liberty. They get it by licensing. The WDC and thew WCC are different matters.
If you want a friendly discussion then I'm happy to take part. Perhaps a question, such as 'why is this on the FIA website' would have got a quick, simple and polite reply.
The FIA earn more than $13 million just from entry fees, that's a decent income for a business from just one of its product lines.
Liberty cant do anything other than promote and earn from the commercial rights of the FIA Formula One World Championship, they don't own it. They also don't have the ability to change the rules, what Brawn is doing right now could be rejected by the FIA if they see fit.
There is a partnership arrangement between the various players in F1 to move the sport forward, which is healthy, but at the end of the day, what the FIA wants is what will happen, they own the championships.
Now you could argue that Liberty could create a new series and abandon the FIA F1 World championship, if that were the case why did they spend so much money buying the rights to exploit it? That's not going to happen is it. They would be killing their investment.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff