If motivated Liberty could appoint another sanctioning body, or create it's own. World Championship Boxing for instance has many sanctioning bodies, and each has it's own "World Champion" . Liberty could then alter the wording on the Trophy plaque and FIA would be without recourse.
Duh! Of course humans make errors which is why "we have rules and regulations to take care of this" is complete baloney. What good are they if a human screws it up?
Just a few points to clarify. It's not he European Community anymore, but the European Union: a completely different entity. . European car makers are not alone in pushing for green energy. Japan and China are very much on board too. In fact China is promoting clean energy and investing in electric cars more than any other nation. The main reason for many countries to abandon fossil fuel is pollution, and not the lack of oil as often suggested. The FIA is based in Europe since the beginning of motor racing. Its ancestor, the International Association of Registered Automobile Clubs (AIACR) was created in Paris in 1904 to administer the early Grand Prix. It's worth noting that the USA were asked to join, but turned down the offer, preferring to organise their motor racing under different rules. Maybe Liberty though they could move the FIA on the other side of the pond ??? Having said that, F1 doesn't exist in a vacuum. Like it or not, to have people invest in it, you have to expect them to get some benefit from it. F1 needs constructors to survive, and their participation comes at a price. That price is high-tech research and new technologies, which may be boring to many, but essential for them to justify their outlay. The average punter may find that very complex, and the racing increasingly boring, but I don't think the FIA or any other organisation will go backwards. F1 now is simply a completely different animal from what it was 20 or 40 years ago. There is still something to enjoy, but not as much as before.
I agree that the FIA is a corrupt political body interested in it's own survival and relevancy more than that of the individual sports it overseas and that Jean Todd has weaseled and bribed his way into a position for life, but I"m not going to blame them solely for the current state of F1. The rules are a constant struggle between F1 (Formerly CVC and now Liberty), the FIA and least we forget the teams. The teams have in my opinion too much power and not only have the veto power over rules, but they pull it out way too often in their own short term self interest. There has been talk of break away formula many times over the years, whenever there's a major rule upheaval on the horizon. The teams don't like what's being proposed so threaten to go and form a break away championship. Then the FIA/F1 offer a concession and one team will jump at it. I'm sorry to say here, but Ferrari is often the team that breaks ranks and falls back in line once they get what they want. Many people state that F1 can't survive without Ferrari, while I don't necessarily agree with that I do agree that no break away series could get off the ground without Ferrari if Ferrari were still in F1. Ferrari threatening to quit was how V6 turbo's replaced the original Renault backed 4 cyl turbo hybrid proposal. The teams are always complaining when there's a major aero roll back proposed. On a side note, I along with many many others have long called for a massive reduction in upper body aero with simpler single or double element wings and to get rid of all the little winglets and other devices. We all tend to believe that limiting upper body aero and getting more downforce from the underbody would make following the car ahead much easier and lead to closer racing and more passing. I'm now not so sure. Look at what's happened with Indy car and the new for 2018 universal aerokit. They have greatly reduced the upper body aero and massively increased the underbody. On the road and street course so far this has been a great success, but look what happened at Indy this year and the other high speed ovals. Even with a little tiny rear wing, normally set at a positive angle of attack even, the cars can't follow as close and we kept hearing from drivers how it was much much harder to follow closely than prior years. Now of course I realize that doing 235 on a super speedway is very different from road and street courses, but it's something to think about.
The teams can propose what they want, and even create a break-away series using an alternative formula that suits their taste. The fact is that they cannot call their new series a "World Championship", nor use the term "F1" which are properties of the FIA. These details would prove a formidable obstacle to see their new series recognised, and may seriously hamper its marketing. There have been talks of "pirate" series since the 70s, but none got of the ground because of these simple facts.
This is absolutely wrong. Renault pushed for smaller, greener, more relevant power units and threatened to quit if the sport did not go that direction. Mercedes backed them up and Ferrari didn’t object. Flavio Briatore was in lockstep with Renault in pushing for green and relevant. Flavio Briatore...as in head of the FIA. Since the implementation, every manufacturer is on record as not wanting to “dumb it down” by getting rid of hybrid components...FOM and the FIA under Jean Todt are forcing the elimination of the MGU-H and the teams have reluctantly agreed on the grounds that it might benefit the sport by attracting new players and teams. The FIA at the time had very much to do with going hybrid. The manufacturers had VERY much to do with it, too.
So look at what a mess boxing is in. There are too many sanctioning bodies and too many "world champions", and most people have lost interest in the sport for that reason (including me).
Even if a new series was created outside F1, it wouldn't be able to use the expressions WORLD DRIVERS CHAMPIONSHIP WORLD CONSTRUCTORS CHAMPIONSHIP FORMULA ONE which are registered trademarks of the FIA. I am not sure, but I think even GRAND PRIX is registered for motor racing. Boxing is different, any sanctioning body can call itself WORLD something, and five WORLD CHAMPION titles, it seems.
Liberty owns the commercial rights of the World Championship, but is not the body that regulates it. You seem to forget that the FIA is the sole authority allowed to license circuits for international competitions, the sole authority that issues super licences, the only organisation that overall international championships, etc... Therefore, I can hardly see Liberty by-passing it. Many have thought about it in the past, only to fall on that stumbling block: the FIA is the Worldwide authority in motor racing.
M generally stands for Million or 1,000,000 300MM is 300,000,000,000,000 or way more people than exist on the earth right now. Even if you are using the Roman version of M or 1,000, losing 300,000,000 is 1/3rd of the viewers F1 used to have.
A world of racing exists outside of FIA sanctioning. A pot of money and some leading barristers could leverage Liberty from the FIA hooded claw. It will not happen though. Liberty is quite happy and will probably sell it's incarnation to Disney.
Flavio Briatore has never been head of the FIA ... or anything to do with the FIA. This thread seems to be full of people who don't understand what F1 is, and how it is what it is. Which probably explains the level of 'debate' in this forum!
D’oh! I meant Max. Brain fart. A mistake that doesn’t indicate anything about my knowledge of F1. The rest of what I said is fact.
MM is a standard way to express million. 1000 1000. See? These are widely reported numbers. 200MM - 300MM. 2018 for sure will be another bloodbath. I expect their numbers to be 314MM viewers at the end of this season. They will have lost about half their viewers in 10 years. Way to go, Todt! Image Unavailable, Please Login
You underestimate the power of the FIA. Of course some forms of local and national racing can escape its net, but not a series that would be international, and challenge one of its world championship. The FIA is supported by the sporting authorities of most countries, for a start. The FIA homologates the circuits that host international events; without its approval insurance would be very difficult. The FIA controls the competition licenses through national club, and is the only one to issue super-licenses for F1. The FIA could ban drivers from competing in a non recognised international series; if they were to compete, they could be barred from entering any race under FIA sanction, national or international. The FIA could ban a circuit to host a non recognised series, and if they do, the FIA could block any sanctioned FIA series to race on that circuit. Club or national organisations participating in a non recognised international series could lose their FIA affiliations, forfeit the right to issue FIA licences, or homologate tracks under its jurisdiction. The idea of organising a rival series to F1 isn't new. Bernie Ecclestone tried it with Max Mosley years ago, when FOCA (the Formula One Constructors Association) was in conflict with Ballestre and the FIA. In view of the consequences, they gave up the idea, preferring to infiltrate the FIA to reform it from inside. Mosley became FIA chairman, and Ecclestone FOM CEO instead. At the time, the FIA threatened constructors to be barred from any other form of FIA championship, if they participated in the pirate series. That would have meant, for example, no Ferrari, no Porsche, no McLaren or no Mercedes allowed to race in any endurance, or GT championship worldwide! Most circuit owners feared to lose their business if they dared to confront the FIA, and most drivers would have been banned for life from competing in other series if they had accepted to join the pirate circus. In the end common sense prevailed !
What these viewers figures mean ? They do not represent Liberty's revenue, do they?, TV rights are regularly negotiated, and their value goes up or down every year, as the contracts are negotiated with different channels or advertisers. Also, some people pay to watch F1, but others don't; some watch it live, and some recorded I have been a TV viewer as soon as F1 came on the box. For years, I got it for free. When the satellite TV came, I subscribed to watch it live only when it stopped. to be free. Now, I don't watch it live anymore, but recorded for free. But I have been a viewer all along. The figures don't reflect that people like me don't put a penny in F1 anymore. I used to, and even attended events, until old age caught up with me, so where do I figure in these stats? I notice from your charts, that the decline in viewers preceded the introduction of the hybrid formula,. I don't think that a technical shake-up and a change of rules will stop the exodus of F1 fans. In the last 10 years, the public taste has changed, and motor racing and F1 in general aren't so attractive to the new generation. It maybe that Liberty bought an ailing business.
It's certainly true that when hosting a motorsport event that is sanctioned by the FIA, costs rapidly accelerate ! The FIA has built up it's business advantage and non-compete clauses in a crafty fashion. It's always been a wonder why the Competition Commission have not thrown the book at them. If the CC are reluctant to break its stranglehold, perhaps it's time for Trump to break the wordlwide French monopoly.
Let's get the facts correct first. F1 commercial rights belong to Liberty, not the FIA. It's Liberty that imposes exorbitant fees to circuits that host GPs. It's Liberty that gets richer, not the FIA. Liberty is a US registered corporation, which has nothing to do with France. The FIA only endorses the World Championship, supervises the rules, and gives it legitimacy.
The FIA is a business, which charges various fees to championships that it sanctions. I formerly represented the FIA European Drag Racing Championships and am familiar with some of it's schemes and protocol. It is a business first and foremost, dressed up in a PC frock while it flies first class around the globe.
I am not defending the FIA, but what you say about it, could also be said about any world sporting federation, like football, athleticism, tennis, swimming, cycling, boxing, etc... There is no denying that they hold some monopoly in their respective discipline and charge fees to sanction championships, competitions, titles, etc... The FIA needs some income to run the organisation, it's run like a ministry, and you cannot expect officials to work for nothing, or travel low-cost. That's the nature of the beast. F1 isn't cheap! But the fees charged to a promoter to organise a F1 GP are not perceived by the FIA, but by Liberty that holds the commercial rights. 65% of these fees are redistributed to the teams, according to a sliding scale based on results, seniority and historic rights. The rest are organisation fees to pay the staff, the logistics for the equipment and the transport of all the teams cars to the venue. I have no doubt that like in any other business, some funds are held in reserve for investment, and dividends for the investors. But this is Liberty, not the FIA.
My contribution to the OP's original question remains. Yes, Liberty could break away with a few modifications to branding, but it would need money and motivation. It has the former but lacks the latter. Meanwhile Moto GP and Blancpain GT seem to be flourishing.
I don't think Liberty can break away from its contract with the FIA. Liberty must make money before it can redistribute it; that means it has to charge circuits and TV channels to get an income. If Liberty starts to redistribute less to teams, it will affect its business, since some of them will go bankrupt. It has to be realised that F1 is at the top of motor racing pyramid, and therefore very expensive. The teams and the manufacturers have accepted the costly hybrid formula, some even pushed for it. Only rich teams, rich circuits and wealthy sponsors can be part of it. You don't get into a casino with only a few $ in your pocket: F1 is the same. One of the attraction of F1 is that it is glamourous, and very unique. I cannot speak for Moto GP, but Blancpain is a series for amateur teams (no factory allowed). I don't think there is any form of redistribution of money in the Blancpain series. Teams are self financed, through sponsorship, and also by wealthy amateurs who buy their seat. The cost of running a 2-car team in Blancpain is a fraction of what it takes to run a F1 team. In Blancpain, there is no development cost: the cars are turn-key models sold by manufacturers. Some cars run for several seasons, and keep a resale value. I have no idea how SRO works, but it has tapped a market that is completely different than F1, and yeas, it's successful.
There is no legal catastrophe. The rules are quite clear and were applied at the end of the race. The race was rolled back to lap 68. Results getting changed after the flag has been part of Motorsport for decades. In 1992 the Nissan GTR crashed out and won the great race thanks to the red flag roll back No they can't just break away, FIA owns F1 via Concorde Agreement, FIA (Max Mosley) gave FOM (Bernie) the commercial rights till the year 2110 and FIA got 5% of FOM shares. Liberty can either sell the rights or **** off and FIA can find a new promoter. MotoGP = FIM which is the motorbikes version of FIA. Blancpain GT only exists with FIA blessing and they use FIA regulations. Even American Motorsport like Nascar and Indycar which create their own rules are still members of the FIA.
Good common sense and knowledge in this post. It's refreshing to know that some people know how sporting institutions work. Thanks for that!
