[Rules] The FIA - what's occurring there?

[Gerard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

we can all be thankful that he didn't take a "Balestre" approach!

[coppice]

You couldn't make it up really. Appoint as the FIA boss a man from a joke country with virtually no motor sport history , apart from recent sportwashing GPs . The country with a barbaric human rights record steeped in medieval values and no press freedom.

What the hell did people expect?

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by coppice

You couldn't make it up really. Appoint as the FIA boss a man from a joke country with virtually no motor sport history , apart from recent sportwashing GPs . The country with a barbaric human rights record steeped in medieval values and no press freedom.

What the hell did people expect?

Who voted for him? The FIA majority that’s who….

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

Who voted for him? The FIA majority that’s who….

Yes - he was elected as FIA President when he received 61.62% of the votes from FIA Member Clubs. That assembly is made up of 244 organisations spread among 146 countries - so despite what we may think of the country he is from, his election was by a large majority representing many countries.

And let's not forget - his election came after support was given to his 'FIA for Members' campaign by Motorsport UK, the governing body of British motorsport.

[coppice]

Wondering - just idly , you understand , what possible motivation some representatives might have had for voting for this absurd man ? Maybe they were from the same school of probity and ethics as all those FIFA folk who thought Qatar's unrivalled sporting heritage and climate made it so well suited for holding the World Cup ?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by coppice

Wondering - just idly , you understand , what possible motivation some representatives might have had for voting for this absurd man ?

Who knows - but the people you are referring to include the following from the UK - who gave a public account of why they voted for this 'absurd man':

David Richards, Chair of Motorsport UK
Ben Sussons, Chair of the Royal Automobile Club

"David Richards, commented, “As the FIA’s officially recognised representative for motorsport in the United Kingdom, I can confirm that Motorsport UK is supporting Mohammed ben Sulayem and his FIA for Members bid for the Presidency of our governing body, the FIA.”
“Over the last few months, we’ve undertaken an extensive period of consultation with our members, in order to properly assess the manifestos of both candidates. We then hosted both teams at the Royal Automobile Club in London where we filmed proceedings so that all our members could see the debate and discussion. We had a lively session of questioning with both teams but were then requested by Graham Stoker not to release the recording of the FIA for All session to anyone.”
“In our view this refusal created a lack of transparency in the process which gave our Board considerable cause for concern, but this was not the only reason for our ultimate decision.”
“Our decision to support FIA for Members and Mohammed ben Sulayem is formed on the belief that motorsport is going through a period of significant challenge and change. This requires dynamic and imaginative leadership that looks to the future and is prepared to be transparent and accountable to its members, embracing the democratic processes one expects to see in a modern sport governing body.”"

[Mike Harte]

In response to crm's post above, I find it very difficult to understand why one of the candidates, Graham Stoker, requested that the video recording of the debate held at the RAC should not be released for MS UK members to view. Where is the transparency, one wonders?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

In response to crm's post above, I find it very difficult to understand why one of the candidates, Graham Stoker, requested that the video recording of the debate held at the RAC should not be released for MS UK members to view. Where is the transparency, one wonders?

It does seem slightly ironic that the candidate who blocked release of the session video was the British candidate - and not the Emirati candidate.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by coppice

You couldn't make it up really. Appoint as the FIA boss a man from a joke country with virtually no motor sport history , apart from recent sportwashing GPs . The country with a barbaric human rights record steeped in medieval values and no press freedom.

What the hell did people expect?

A genuine statesman, a real leader, someone with a vision, who could corral any number of warring parties, achieve alignment and propel the relevance of the FIA into a new stratosphere.

[S griffin]

He's taken the only course he can take and that's to step back while this is going. Better not to stoke the fire even more. We saw what that can do to famous figures in politics and sport.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

A genuine statesman, a real leader, someone with a vision, who could corral any number of warring parties, achieve alignment and propel the relevance of the FIA into a new stratosphere.

That is an interesting statement in view of the fact that we had Balestre, Mosley, and Todt preceding the present figure.
The first two were very hands on to the point of confrontational at times, and also left their mark in a number of areas.
The second was a strong ally of the commercial rights holder at the time, and many decisions reflected that relationship.
Todt on the other hand was almost invisible except for the 'trooping of the colour' occasions spending a lot of time with road car safety (as did Max) and diplomatic issues other than F1.

Any expectation that the new FIA leader could corral 'any number of warring parties' and 'achieve alignment' and 'propel the relevance of the FIA into a new atmosphere' is a lot of wishful thinking on someone's part.

It assumes the FIA wasn't relevant in road car safety (it was very influential on safety) and that as a sporting regulatory body it wasn't doing enough.

Yet what we have is pushback from a number of admittedly vested interests on the sporting side when in fact as regulator the ultimate authority over regulation, the FIA president is the one where the buck stops.


Not all his decisions an comment's may be considered wise but if people wanted to push 'the FIA's relevance into a new stratosphere' then MBS may simply have been living up to those expectations.

The FIA is still the regulator and has the responsibility for the sport but we have a very political group of individuals in F1 who are willing the push back as though the issues that affect them are their responsibility and it isn't surprising that there is some tension between the two parties.

Many of the regulatory issues are decisions made before MBS took on the job. Even 2021 at Abu Dhabi happened before Todt left office. It was just on MBS's desk when he arrived.
A different solution may have established his authority more substantively than has been the case and now the 'roar' from the 'racing media' and some 'famously outspoken F1 personalities' is almost like a pre-emptive campaign to create a movement to silence the FIA and run the sport as a few select personalities would like it to be run and regulated.

That may backfire substantially.
Just how and when remains to be seen.

[GTRMagic]

Mr Balestre seemingly thought France was the only country on the planet
Mr Mosley seemingly thought he had been appointed King with unlimited mandate
Mr Todt seemingly knew there were more countries in the world than France. Is Maranello a country

The way to change a house is from the inside.
If you keep letting off hand grenades, and not throwing them very far, eventually they will pop in your face.

[Tourer]

"Clarification" issued by the FIA on the driver comments / actions rule change.

Personal opinion, but to me in most cases when "clarifications" are needed, it's a good indicator of a poorly thought-through initial rule or missive but the organisation concerned doesn't want to "lose face" by dropping the change completely.

I can see this leading to at some stage. Imagine being the Steward for example who has to adjudicate on any such case - particularly if the driver is expressing a commonly-held and well-supported view in the community. Would you REALLY want your name to be on a document attempted to censor the driver?

Was clumsy & heavy-handed and poorly done when first announced and the FIA seems to have decided that a shovel to dig itself into a deeper hole isn't appropriate so has now engaged an excavator.

[coppice]

I bet George Orwell is holding his sides in mirth - F1 has turned into a 1984 pastiche, where it is fine for the Saudis to execute scores of people in a day (for the 'crime ' of political dissent ) but it is forbidden for a driver to mention the fact, and maybe, y'know, even wrinkle his brow about it . As you would.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Tourer

"Clarification" issued by the FIA on the driver comments / actions rule change.

Personal opinion, but to me in most cases when "clarifications" are needed, it's a good indicator of a poorly thought-through initial rule or missive but the organisation concerned doesn't want to "lose face" by dropping the change completely.

I can see this leading to at some stage. Imagine being the Steward for example who has to adjudicate on any such case - particularly if the driver is expressing a commonly-held and well-supported view in the community. Would you REALLY want your name to be on a document attempted to censor the driver?

Was clumsy & heavy-handed and poorly done when first announced and the FIA seems to have decided that a shovel to dig itself into a deeper hole isn't appropriate so has now engaged an excavator.

Peer pressure seems to have been the reason behind this clarification

[chillibowl]

It has clarified that "private, non-proselytising religious gestures, such as pointing to the sky or crossing oneself, shall not be considered prohibited religious statements."

glad they cleared that up.

[Tourer]

Interesting article here about Russians and their money being welcomed in the UAE.

So far no-one is kicking or seriously pressuring the UAE about it but IF that changed, is holding an F1 GP there (with Russian yachts in attendance?) going to remain feasible? Might it be that the Pres needs to make a hard call on his own country - OR would that be a call for the Commercial Rights Holder?

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Interesting article here about Russians and their money being welcomed in the UAE.

So far no-one is kicking or seriously pressuring the UAE about it but IF that changed, is holding an F1 GP there (with Russian yachts in attendance?) going to remain feasible? Might it be that the Pres needs to make a hard call on his own country - OR would that be a call for the Commercial Rights Holder?

We can, but hope. But I wouldn't hold your breath...

[Derwent]

Who is actually in charge these days? The FIA or Liberty? At the moment I am sure if I like either. Both seem happy to have Gulf states with minimal population or interest hosting GPs because they pay well and it is home to the FIA president. There are other countries with dubious human and moral rights records that have GPs for the same reason. Liberty are only interested in the bottom line and are happy to dumb everything down to the lowest level to suit the American audience.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by Derwent

Who is actually in charge these days? The FIA or Liberty? At the moment I am sure if I like either. Both seem happy to have Gulf states with minimal population or interest hosting GPs because they pay well and it is home to the FIA president. There are other countries with dubious human and moral rights records that have GPs for the same reason. Liberty are only interested in the bottom line and are happy to dumb everything down to the lowest level to suit the American audience.

For what its worth i cancelled my Sky subscription over the winter. Just find the whole F1 thing morally iffy - although I know I am in a minority!

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

For what its worth i cancelled my Sky subscription over the winter. Just find the whole F1 thing morally iffy - although I know I am in a minority!

I don't think you're in the minority over finding it iffy. But yeah you might be in the minority for finding it iffy enough to cancel.

Everyone has their line on what's too much. You've clearly found your line, which is totally fair. I haven't yet....but then again I don't pay money to watch F1, so it's easier for me to not stop watching in that regard.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Derwent

dumb everything down to the lowest level to suit the American audience.

How big is that brush you are painting with?

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

For what its worth i cancelled my Sky subscription over the winter. Just find the whole F1 thing morally iffy - although I know I am in a minority!

I don't think you are minority. F1 has been gradually getting morally more and more iffy. There were anti-government protests in 2011 in Bahrain, which lead to the GP being cancelled. Nevertheless, the race returned in 2012.

In 2014, the same year as the first Russian GP was held, Bernie announced plans to hold a GP in Azerbaijan. The race was established with the financial support of the Azerbaijani government and became subject to criticism due to Azerbaijan's human rights record.

In June 2016, Sport for Rights called for Bernie to speak out about human rights in Azerbaijan. They had previously written an open letter to him, to which he had not replied. Sport for Rights said they weren't calling for cancellation of the race but instead urged F1 to use the race to publicly promote human rights issues. Bernie replied a week later, saying Formula One had "a clear conscience" on human rights adding: "I tell you what we ought to do. As far as we are concerned, not have any races where there is corruption in the country. Can you tell me where we are going to be racing?

Now Liberty are running the show, they appear to have taken on Bernie's mantle with gusto, having added three races, as well as picking up a major sponsor in the form of Aramco, from two Middle-Eastern countries with a history of violating human rights.

I've never had a Sky subscription and will never get one. I've always disliked how Sky have had a monopoly on televised sport.

[Richard C]

My perception is that we are just in a situation in which a lot is changing all at once. The transition from Bernie to Liberty. On average a reduction in classic European centric races to more races in the Middle East and the United States. FIA leadership that doesn't fit prior examples.

As to Bernie to Liberty, this is also aggravated by concerns over F1 moving away from it's historic Eurocentric center of gravity. In this case a general fear of the "Americanization" of F1. Fold in new cost cap structures that are almost always compared to US sports such as NFL, etc. (even if I believe these ideas also exist in Europe) as well as technical regulations that are more and more spec. So this plays to the fears that F1 is moving away from "pure sport" to "just entertainment" (it hasn't been pure sport since... ?).

I think much of this has been a long time coming. Maybe a bit accelerated recently, but not new. Liberty just following the money and maybe turning a blind eye to other issues with the host nation is just more of the same of the pattern that Bernie established. But sure, blame it on Liberty. I mean, they are still doing it. Just because Bernie did it, doesn't mean they have to do the same.

As to the pattern of growing races in Middle East and USA, I agree on bemoaning the reduction of races in Europe. Because as even an American fan, I love the classic tracks. But overall, I support a "reasonable" growth in the US. As to Middle Eastern races. I guess it is hard to turn away the money when F1 is a for profit business venture (even though fans have a hard time accepting that fact). As to FIA leadership from the Middle East. That has already been discussed as to how/why that happened. I have nothing to add other than I do think there is a bit of that part of the world looking fondly at F1 and wanting to fully control it.

As to "Americanization" (whatever that means... an an American I am probably too dumb to understand the concept ). I can appreciate the fear. But I think much of it is overblown. It comes across as very jingoistic. The alternative would be for F1 to continue on a long decline by just remaining stagnant. Which IMHO, is the path Bernie had it on. We tend to bemoan (miss) the good things about him, but we also don't give enough credit to the improvements (better fan engagement... not withstanding the new FIA stance, improved financial stability, etc.) that have happens after he was no longer in charge. F1 is probably significantly more healthy than it has been in decades. And I frankly think much of that is down to new leadership and change!

Richard

[chillibowl]

in fairness, how does the present differ from f1's historically long association with big oil, big tobacco, big alcohol or any number of other less than desirable actors who have used sport to gain visibility and prestige?

the need for money to fund racing (or play sport in general) and the need to connect with those who have that money has always been a morally problematic relationship.

that doesnt mean i dont think people should speak out against it. to the contrary, we have always needed more of this not less!