FIA should FIA write the F1 regulations

[bogaTYR]

an interersting question and until today, the answer to me was a clear yes. And then one runs into this http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=36888

and it makes sense if one thinks about it or maybe not. I am getting a bit confused about this meddling with commercial interests, especially the statement that the teams did not follow the FIA with the changes we had this year but 'allow them' raises some eye browes.

Plus the story there was no podium for the WDC in Brazil is, well, silly... really

 

[Brogan]

Interesting article, thanks for the link.

It raises quite a few questions with regards to rules and the relationship between Ecclestone, Mosley, the teams and the FIA.

What is clear is that the FIA are only able to implement certain rules with the agreement of the teams.
This is a fundamental shift from what I expect most peoples perceptions are.

Of course, the main thrust of Ecclestone's complaint is more stringent rules and cost cutting potentially means less revenue and therefore less profit for him.

 

[Galahad]

Under the old Concorde Agreement (now expired), the FIA could only make changes to the Technical or Sporting regulations with the unanimous agreement of the teams.

The only exception to this was changes made on the grounds of safety, and Max has utilised this loophole to the full, bringing through a raft of changes that, on the face of it, had only a passing relevance to safety. After all, any change that influences the performance of the cars brings safety implications, doesn't it? The change from 3 litre V10s to 2.4 litre V8s was made on safety grounds despite strident opposition from several engine manufacturers, Toyota and BMW in particular, because of the additional expense incurred in the development of a whole new engine type.

As Bernie says, there are a number of areas within the sport where sporting and commercial interests overlap, and the FIA have been regulating for many years now in an attempt to "cut costs". Where they have not been involved, and are not likely to get involved, is in the matter of teams' income from FOM - this is what the EU were concerned about. Since Bernie has a seat on the FIA's World Motor Sport Council we might reflect on whether the separation of powers envisaged by the EU has been achieved in reality?

I oppose dictatorship in any form, and I wouldn't like to see a return to the days of the FIA acting unilaterally, as Balestre liked to do, without consultation or input of the teams. After all, the teams know the rules better than the rulemakers do, they know where the loopholes are and they know whether any changes are going to achieve their desired effects. As far as I know the FIA haven't got a full-scale windtunnel in the back garden at the Place de la Concorde...

Ideally everyone would be involved and this would foster a climate of trust and security.

 

[cider_and_toast]

So many parts of that article that are worth commenting on it's hard to know where to start.

I did like Bernies line on checking a car before the race because "it can't become illegal during the race". He obviously forgot two things here, 1) the cars are checked before the race and 2) It was his Brabhams that pioneered the pnumatic suspension after the ban on sliding skirts and the introduction of the minimum ground clearence rule that saw the cars legal in the pits but illegal during the race !!!!

The overall tone of the article suggests that Bernie is once again trying to align himself with the teams. He is now facing a two pronged threat from both FOTA and his relationship with Max. It would seem that in the last couple of years Bernie is starting to become more marginalised within the sport. Lest we forget that he has only been appointed to run the commercial side of F1 by the banks. He is no longer the majority owner of the buisness and can technically be fired at any time.

As regards writing the rules. It would be a great start if the FIA ditched it's own appeals system and relied on the independant court of sporting arbitration. This should then reduce the calls of bias everytime a ruling is handed out by the FIA. I've often wondered how the FIA can sit as both Judge and Prosecuter.

 

[bogaTYR]

GM, nice one to have dictatorship and place de la concorde in one sentence. i see you do know your revolutionary classics too apart from all ins and outs of motor sports. One day I will think of something you don't know

I agree. But on the other hand, we do not need lawlessnes, do we? And that is what scared me in this article. I got the feeling all is allowed if it makes sense commercially. This opens one great big can of worms cos what part of F1 is not comemrcially driven?

Just took some time thinking what part of F1 is not commercial and I have to say, I cannot think of any! Even the toilet paper in the VIP room has a commercial value.

So to me this means the teams can do whatever they like. And that does not cheer me up.

 

[Brogan]

I did like Bernies line on checking a car before the race because "it can't become illegal during the race". He obviously forgot two things here, 1) the cars are checked before the race and 2) It was his Brabhams that pioneered the pnumatic suspension after the ban on sliding skirts and the introduction of the minimum ground clearence rule that saw the cars legal in the pits but illegal during the race !!!!

I missed that bit
The nerve of the man

Also, don't forget that drivers have been disqualified for having "illegal skidblock wear" and that is something that still exists today so you have to wonder why he would say that.

 

[Galahad]

That bit did make me smile.

Bernie cannot possibly be as one-dimensional as his interviews and public comments would suggest. And, of course, he isn't.

There's some game being played here between little Bern, Max and possibly including Luca di Montezemolo, and I suspect we won't find out what they were up to for months if not years.

I doubt whether the other team bosses will either...

 

[FB]

If the EU insists that there must be separation between the money side of F1 and the rule making how does this work with other sports? I'm fairly sure that FIFA makes all the rules governing football worldwide but takes a cut from TV revenues for the World Cup etc.; is this not the same? Also, I don't see anyone clamouring for the biggest football teams to make the rules. They have the G14 group of richest clubs but this is more a lobby group on commercial rights rather than on rules changes.

My interpretation of this is "Hell hath no fury like a Bernie scorned". He's obviously still smarting from the introduction of the F2 series and isn't best buddies with Max because of his personal habits.

I've defended Max and Bernie in the past (on other forums) as being the only people who could hold F1 together, if they don't work together the future could be very bleak. My worst scenario is for the manufacturers to create a break away formula, leaving F1 run by the FIA as a hollow shell; then, in 5 years time (as Honda have proven), all the manufacturers bow out leaving us humble fans with nothing…

 

[Galahad]

I don't think the EU can do much about FIFA as a properly global sporting body, but they have certainly poked their noses into UEFA's commercial relationships:
http://www.sportrecht.org/EU-Recht/Memo-03-156.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsp ... 230537.stm

 

[teabagyokel]

If the EU insists that there must be separation between the money side of F1 and the rule making how does this work with other sports? I'm fairly sure that FIFA makes all the rules governing football worldwide but takes a cut from TV revenues for the World Cup etc.; is this not the same? Also, I don't see anyone clamouring for the biggest football teams to make the rules. They have the G14 group of richest clubs but this is more a lobby group on commercial rights rather than on rules changes.

G14 was disbanded a year ago after some concession or other from UEFA. Technically, FIFA doesn't make all the global rules regarding football worldwide. The rules are made by the IFAB (International Football Associations Board), which consists of delegations from FIFA, the FA, the Scottish FA, the Welsh FA and the (Northern) Irish FA. This is in order to recognise that the game was invented in Britain. Similarly, the rules of cricket are decided by the MCC rather than the ICC. Also, it is unlikely that FIFA takes in the money itself with regards to the World Cup. They have probably got some "marketing partner" who sells the advertising hoardings and takes in the money. It used to be ISL, until ISL went bust! UEFA, for example, use TEAM to sell the Champions League to its sponsors.

It is always dangerous, of course, when one body acts as rulemaker, judge and prosecutor! This seems to be like a banana republic to me!

The EU, however, is difficult to face down as UEFA found in the wake of the Bosman ruling. Even though UEFA were a Swiss company, it still had to remove the national restrictions in the Champions League because they could not be enforced in England, Spain, France, Italy etc.

One problem with motorsport in general is that the laws of the game are ever changing. The aforementioned bodies (the IFAB and the MCC) remain largely dormant because the rules of their sports seldom change. The last rule in football to come in that I can remember is the yellow card for taking a shirt off during a goal celebration. Hence, they can remain quasi-independent. It is also the case that it would be difficult for FIFA to get a unanimous decision from every football club in the world! Surely Boca Juniors, Gamba Osaka and Aston Villa will have different cultures so different interpretations of the game. Plus it would not make FIFA's day if the law making procedure was held up by Norton United!

Although if they followed the FIA example, they'd probably just listen to Real Madrid or Manchester United and sod the rest!!!

 

[FB]

Thanks for the links folks. I love the bit in the EU vs UEFA document where they claim the consumer will benefit from splitting up the sales of football rights and it will lead to cheaper and more extensive coverage. It flys in the face of reality when viewers now have to pay a subscription to Setanta to watch the Premier League, with no reduction in Sky subscription prices; and why you used to be able to watch all the Champions League games free on ITV but now half are on Sky's subscription service.

Well done the EU, please try and "save" me some more money!

 

[teabagyokel]

At least they've kept the "crown jewels" rule by which the top sport in the country - Wimbledon, F1, the World Cup/Euros, 6 Nations etc. have to be on "terrestrial" TV. Although that's probably under review, and the list is not nearly extensive enough...

If England internationals in the top 3 team sports - football, rugby union and cricket - are not shown on free-to-air, then what's the point of the "crown jewels" ruling. Luckily for me, I'm on Setanta Sports (!) and therefore can watch all England football matches. And I suppose its good we didn't see England RU in the Autumn...!

 

[bogaTYR]

it ain't rocket science, is it?

The rights get sold to the highest bidder. By default that means one party. So nothing really changed from what it used to be, apart from the fact you now have a highest bidder. Which means this party wants to make a profit. And since a percentage from a whole lot is more then the same percentage from a lot the more we (the end users) have to pay.

So this whole EU thing is only driving the prices higher for lots of sports. To get better service and/or lower prices you need at least 2 parties. But that doesn't fit with the concept of selling to the highest bidder.

Elementary really... but if its any good....

 

[FB]

If I understand correctly the EU insited that the TV rights for the Premier League was sold off in different packages, hence why we get some matches on Sky and some on Sultana. My complaint was that if I want to watch all the Premier League matches previously I only had to pay a subscription to Sky, now (should I choose to) I would have to pay a subscription to Sky and Sultana with no reduction in the price from Sky. The Premier League get more money and the viewers get ripped off.

For F1 I think the situation is slightly different as there is only one race to sell (by this I mean there aren't two Brazilian Grand Prix with different teams competing), unless Bernie flogs the qualifying coverage to Sky which, frankly, is sometimes more exciting than the race itself!

On the "Crown Jewels" issue, I think this would only cover the British Grand Prix so I suppose there is a risk we could end up with the Beeb showing the British GP and the rest going to a subscription service. Hopefully Bernie doesn't have any such plans (given the failure commercial of F1 Digital) but you never know...

 

[teabagyokel]

Well, I think F1 as a package's worth would be lost a little bit by not having a full series on the box. And I believe that Bernie himself does want to sell F1 to terrestrial companies rather than to subscription services, in order to expose F1 to more European viewers. Judging on the coverage of tennis on the BBC [show Wimbledon and sod the rest - anyone who's watched the ultra-ropey Australian Open coverage over the last few weeks will know what I'm talking about] I can imagine the Beeb only showing the British GP and ignoring the rest of the series, but the view from Bernie is that F1 is a 17-race series of rights and is sold as such!

Like you say, F1 is not the Champions League, you can't show Ferrari vs BMW on ITV on a Tuesday night, Red Bull vs McLaren on a Wednesday and have all other matches available via the red button on Sky Sports Extra! (Followed by GP2 shown erratically on Five or ITV4 on a Thursday!)

Either way, it looks like the BBC have a little bit of money in the Sport department - they've lost the hugely expensive FA deal to ITV/Setanta, so I think they can spend some of that on F1, especially since the Football League/Cup deal will be a lot cheaper than that particular deal!