Who should run F1 - the FIA or the teams

[Andrew Hornsey]

Some contributors to this site question what the FIA are doing to F1.

Who should be running it?

The teams seem to want more and more say in the running of the sport. Should they have more?

Whilst the concord agreement is in place, a 100% agreement is need for rule changes. Should 1 Team be able to block what the majority agree on.

Forgetting the commercial (TV Rights etc), surley the teams should concentrate on being a team and let the organisers make the rules.

I make this comment as someone that runs championships, and has done so for a few years now. I am very aware of what my teams want, and will give it to them if it is good for the championship. But I will always look at the needs of the championship over individual teams.

With the interst of all of the managers of the "big teams" in F1 being first and foremost their own team, how can they make a judgement on the bigger picture, rather than just their team?

[Sodemo]

The one thing they need to change in the concorde agreement is the 100% of teams have to agree to changes in the regs.
If that was made into 80% then we wouldn't have as many problems.

[Raglanparade]

The FIA should be running the series, not Bernies company. It is Bernies company that has everyone bowing to it. If the FIA was in charge of Formula 1, it wouldnt be seen as a purely entertainment package, but as a SPORT !!

The FIA will never gain power of F1 again, as they simply cant afford to. So the FIA gives into Bernies demands because 1. It keeps F1 alive 2. They know Bernie has to die someday

[garcon]

The FIA does run F1. Bernie's company just runs the promotion of it, including venues and media. And unlike so many fans, I think the FIA and Bernie are well aware of the contribution they both make to making F1 the spectacle it is. I'm not saying it's perfect, but comments such as 'they know Bernie has to die someday' are neither accurate nor tasteful.

[krt917]

Well the teams certainly shouldn't control F1, or any other series for that matter. Firstly, each has its own interest to look out for and tends to work towards that rather than working towards the 'common good' (and their ideas on what that is would vary as well).

Secondly, call me old-fashioned, but I think that a governing body should set the rules and those who want to compete do so. Of course, there has to be some communication between potential entrants and a governing body, but the latter should always have more power. If it doesn't, then you can get all sorts of problems, such as occurs in Sportscar racing every time they let an illegal car in to keep a certain manufacturer sweet.

[DougK]

I agree the FIA should make the rules and the teams should either accept them or leave the sport. However the teams should have a voice and give reasoned arguments and thats all. Perhaps 1 member on the board/comittee that decides the rules and regs should be appointed by the teams.

In terms of BE - he should concentrate on the promotion and arranging the venues, dates etc side of things and keep his nose out of the rules.... This is the split that is needed more. The FIA should fully decide the format and regulations.

Whilst it may not be tasteful to say that BE will die someday - its a fact, and it shouldn't be down to a single person to decide how everything happens.

[Kicking-back]

FIA with Bernie promoting - as it is now.

If the teams ran things it would be a disaster.

[garcon]

Bernie might offer his tuppence worth on rules and regs, but it is definitely the FIA that makes them and enforces them - in reasonable consultation with the teams, as Andrew said of his own series* in his opening thread.

This myth that everything must cross BE's desk is simply not supported by fact.

* what's the plural of series?

[DougK]

Not support by fact because half of what happen's in F1 is in secret and behind closed doors.

MM and BE are "in bed together".

[Super Tourer]

The FIA should be responsible for regulation and will be.

A commercial organisation should promote it - however when BE has got all the remaining teams to sign up (which I am sure he will), there needs to be a different and more visible structure in place for what happens post BE. Whilst it's is tastless to wish anyone ill, it's pragmatic to discuss the future. BE is in his 70's and cannot go on for ever, to have confidence in the future everyone who is putting money into F1 needs to know it's not going to be a 'one-man show'.

Another factor not mentioned is that whilst the GPWC is finished as a series, it's not neccesarily the end of it as an organisation or pressure group. Having got a taste of what a bit of collective pressure and bargaining can achieve, I wonder if we may see more posturing from the teams collectively in the future.

[alesi95]

FIA.

I apologies for so many short answers recently. But these are the most logical soloutions.

[Mr V]

The teams can't be trusted to stay around long enough to run the sport.

The FIA don't do a bad job, and the fact is, there isn't anyone around about at the moment to head it, who is better than Max, (not saying that Max is neccessarily the best bloke in the world), i just wish that the (current) FIA wouldn't try pushing everything through on grounds of safety.

[Rich R]

the safety argument is the only way to force rule changes past the teams at the moment though, but i understand what you mean.

[Super Tourer]

Putting my devils advocate hat on for a moment...

As a regulator you often stand the possibility of ending up with the perfect set of rules (from the enforcers viewpoint), but no entrants. If you canvassed the regulators/organisers of pretty much any series from WRC to touring cars and GT to the WRC, what they would like to do and what they are able to do (and keep a series together), is rarely the same thing.

As the saying goes, 'politics is the art of the possible', the same goes for regulating a motor sport series and particularly F1.

I'm sure many of us would love the FIA to come up with rules (many of which we would want to see), implement and enforce them without question, take it or leave it in effect. The trouble is that the participants who don't need to be there (75% of the grid) will leave it - you end up with a stunning set of rigorous rules but no one to impose them on.

So, there will always be an element of give and take between the FIA and the teams and I would agree with anyone who says the teams have held too much power. It's equally tiresome that in order to get the 5 rule changes that he wants, Max Mosley has to dream up 20 in order to drop 15 of them during the negotiating process.

This needs to change, and whilst dreaming up a new constitution over how the cash is carved up, how the rules are set and agreed on needs to be a priority.

Personally, I would love to know how MM got the V8 engine rule through in the face of seemingly entrenched positions, from particularly BMW, I find it hard to believe that the 'good of the sport' suddenly became a factor, so there must be another reason which may show itself in the future.

It's the 'smokey poker room' and 'deal making' over rules that leaves such a bad taste and creates such alienation in the media and fanbase. I can't see why the Concorde Agreement needs to be secret nowadays, with so many of the participants listed on various equity markets and having to make their accounts public, it can't be that difficult for anyone to peer throught their books to see how much FOM paid them, it is in effect in the public domain.

[DougK]

I suppose the problem was caused by the FIA selling the various rights to BE. If they had kept them they would have the power as they hold the cash - Money talks and the FIA could have given incentives to make things happen.

In those terms maybe BE and the FIA could work better together, but BE has to be prepared to give more and stop being so greedy..... he don't need the cash.

[GP Racer]

Teams running F1 would be a disaster IMO.

Teams like Ferrari would have very different opinions on rules, races, cars etc. than say Minardi. There would be no way of these two teams agreeing on much of anything. And then you have the question of, should a team like Minardi, that has such a small budget, have an equal amount of input as Ferrari, that has a massive budget?

Rules and the like should stay with a governing body, and if a team likes those sets of rules, they can than choose to compete in it, or pick a series more to their liking...