In the history of Formula 1 the disputes between the International Federation and the holder of the commercial rights cyclically peep out. Coexistence between two centers of power is never easy, but over the years there have been long periods of quiet cohabitation, without moments of tension and with good cooperation.
Since last December 17th the FIA presidency passed to Mohammed Ben Sulayem, Formula 1 has had to face some thorny problems, starting with the “Michael Masi” case, filed without controversy, but since last spring between the International Federation and Liberty Media has begun to feel some tension.
In some cases the positions taken by the FIA president have been evident, on other occasions there has been some form of spite which, although not of great substance, reaffirms a basic aspect.
Ben Sulayem’s attitude denotes the desire to draw a very precise boundary between the competences of the FIA and those that belong to the holder of the commercial rights, an intention that transpires even in situations of secondary importance.
An example was yesterday, when the FIA released a press release containing the calendar of the Formula 1 World Championship 2023.
Tradition has always seen Liberty Media and FIA send a joint press release, because if it is formally correct to consider the approval of the calendar as an area of FIA competence, it is also true that the drafting of the same is the result of a long work carried out and concluded by Liberty Media, which deals with negotiating and concluding the negotiations with the promoters of each single Grand Prix.
Stefano Domenicali, CEO, Formula 1, with George Russell, Mercedes-AMG
Photo by: Steve Etherington / Motorsport Images
The FIA on this occasion did not inform Liberty Media of the dispatch of the calendar, and in the London offices the staff under the direction of Stefano Domenicali learned of the officialization without any notice.
Ben Sulayem also wanted to mark the territory with a very cryptic declaration, (“The addition of new races and the maintenance of traditional events underlines the solid management of the sport by the FIA”) attributing the merit of a work actually carried out by Liberty.
The International Federation (through the World Council) has the last word on the approval (or not) of the calendar, but in fact in recent years the World Council has seemed more of a stamp office than a body capable of really entering into the merits of issues by exercising that right of veto it possesses.
FIA logo
Photo by: Rainier Ehrhardt
Something is changing, and it is not necessarily a negative aspect if the institutional power of the FIA acts as a guarantee of what are the basic values of sport.
So far, however, curious positions have been taken, from the controversy over the jewels worn by the drivers, to the entry into force of the TD39 directive without going through the Formula 1 Commission, to the indifference in front of the safety alarm launched in Miami by Sainz and Ocon for the barriers at turn 14, up to the rejection of the Sprint Race increase, a motivated decision with a potential increase in costs borne by the FIA itself.
The International Federation wants to mark the territory but above all it demands a larger share of the financial revenues that Liberty Media derives from the sale of commercial rights. The FIA on the economic front is not sailing in calm waters, the balance sheets are in deficit, and this aspect is probably not good for Ben Sulayem.
However, it is also true that without the contributions that Formula 1 guarantees every year, at Place de la Concorde they would run the risk of not having the necessary funds for the very survival of the Federation, so it is a delicate game.
What Formula 1 complains (in this case not only Liberty Media, but a large part of the paddock), however, is a lack of efficiency in some contexts on the part of the FIA men. In addition to the management of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix last year, the most recent case is the conclusion of the Monza race, formally correct (it is right to underline this) but in any case conditioned by a non-impeccable management by the FIA men.
Having wanted to skip the Formula 1 Commission in the ‘TD39’ affair was not taken well by most of the teams, as was the ‘tie’ introduced in Canada by bypassing the World Council in this case.
In addition, there is also a crucial aspect, and that is linked to the budget cap control system, which according to some insiders who work in different teams at the moment appears to be deficient.
The impression is that the game will go on, perhaps without swords but with foil shots. To be unassailable, the International Federation must, however, be able to guarantee impeccable management in its role.
It is right that the FIA does the FIA, it is essential that a sport does not remain exclusively in the hands of those involved in business, but also a competent and experienced working group is needed to protect itself from criticism and discontent. History has it that the FIA performed well in times when the men of the International Federation seemed almost transparent to the system. When it gets in the spotlight, it’s usually not a good sign.
#FIA #provokes #Liberty #mark #territory