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

[GTRMagic]

When will F1 pitch the FIA to the top and build their own governing body?

The Woolf accusations are signs of a very unwanted culture..

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

When will F1 pitch the FIA to the top and build their own governing body?

The Woolf accusations are signs of a very unwanted culture..

How would that solve anything?

When you say "F1" who do you mean? Lets say it is the teams, and maybe FOM. The teams will insist on proper governance and segregation of duties. So any governing body would have to operate with a wall between those who are being governed.

This will create this current configuration all over again and create the potential for this situation in which you have some type of relationship, be it spouse or similar in which there is a potential bridge between the two parts that are to be firewalled from each other. This type of potential conflict of interest could easily happen even with FIA out of the picture.

Fact is, secrets leak. We all know this. We all probably have seen it happen. With respect to the F1 financial audits, it seems to have leaked. When content as juicy as that leaks and leaks publicly, then people start to look to who might either have a reason to benefit and/or who might have been in a position to facilitate. This situation is the risk you have if your house has a foot in both sides of a potentially adversarial relationship.

I am not saying the Wolfe's are guilty, but they end up being prime suspects for the reasons I call out above. FIA also doesn't want to appear to be complicit, so they will want to investigate.

Another problem here is that Ben Sulayem has asked the FIA to investigate which means it is not impartial. If the FIA is serious, then they should ask for an outside investigation. I think that they are not doing that is as much of an issue as anything. Who inside the FIA ultimately was the source? If I were the Wolfe's and I were innocent, I would be screaming that this is not being done impartially and that they have likely already decided on who is at fault (i.e. pin it on them).

Richard

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Richard C

How would that solve anything?

When you say "F1" who do you mean? Lets say it is the teams, and maybe FOM. The teams will insist on proper governance and segregation of duties. So any governing body would have to operate with a wall between those who are being governed.

This will create this current configuration all over again and create the potential for this situation in which you have some type of relationship, be it spouse or similar in which there is a potential bridge between the two parts that are to be firewalled from each other. This type of potential conflict of interest could easily happen even with FIA out of the picture.

Fact is, secrets leak. We all know this. We all probably have seen it happen. With respect to the F1 financial audits, it seems to have leaked. When content as juicy as that leaks and leaks publicly, then people start to look to who might either have a reason to benefit and/or who might have been in a position to facilitate. This situation is the risk you have if your house has a foot in both sides of a potentially adversarial relationship.

I am not saying the Wolfe's are guilty, but they end up being prime suspects for the reasons I call out above. FIA also doesn't want to appear to be complicit, so they will want to investigate.

Another problem here is that Ben Sulayem has asked the FIA to investigate which means it is not impartial. If the FIA is serious, then they should ask for an outside investigation. I think that they are not doing that is as much of an issue as anything. Who inside the FIA ultimately was the source? If I were the Wolfe's and I were innocent, I would be screaming that this is not being done impartially and that they have likely already decided on who is at fault (i.e. pin it on them).

Richard

If the scenario you are postulating is true, (that the wolf's leaked confidential information) where did it coe from?
Is it information they had a right to know?
Was it leaked to them by someone in the FIA?
Are they merely pawns in a game of chess between FOM and the FIA?
Is this simply another brokerage in the power game between FOM and the FIA?

What everyone forgets is that the arrangement that surfaced after the FIA split the commercial side from the governance at the EU's behest, was that the arrangement was created to serve BE's needs and he was the power broker, not the FIA and not MM.

What you have is far from a cohesive arrangement and one created merely to serve the desires of the EU bureaucrats, not necessarily what would work in a free market or what would work without BE and MM at the head of it.

The whole thing is faulty.
IMSA doesn't have this problem, nor IndyCar or NASCAR.

The current model is about as stable and fragile as a bureaucrat's pavlova.

There is no point in shooting MBS because it is the FIA's championship, not Liberty's, despite whatever Liberty may think.
Effectively FOM served BE's purposes and MM was his offsider. There was no conflict because they both pulled in the same direction.
MM's successor Todt understood this and left BE to do his own thing with as little interference. as possible.

That worked and this present situation doesn't.
Sidelining BE and then pushing him off in a lone kayak basically robbed them of the understanding of the one person who was the glue that held the whole thing together.

Yes, he was missing some things and maybe was missing some commercial opportunities, but you don't build an ark by throwing away the glue stick and substituting butter.

The present arrangement will not work effectively, and you can't have an F1 WDC without an FIA as regulator. And if you do away with the FIA it won't be F1 anymore.
Max V and some of the others are right. It will change the DNA of F1 to the point where it is really unrecognizable.
It won't resemble F1 anymore than IMSA or NASCAR do.

[Mike Harte]

From reading the reports about this that were linked on the previous page, it appears that the "leak/s" that is/are being discussed here is/are believed to have come from Wollfs' wife, Susie, who was appointed to lead the F1 Acadamy which is an official FIA position and she reports to the head of the FIA, whatever his name is.

She would therefore become privy to internal F1 information, and some team principles appear to believe that there is or maybe there is a potential possibility that some of that information, which may or may not be about some of the other teams, is being passed over during pillow talk.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

From reading the reports about this that were linked on the previous page, it appears that the "leak/s" that is/are being discussed here is/are believed to have come from Wollfs' wife, Susie, who was appointed to lead the F1 Acadamy which is an official FIA position and she reports to the head of the FIA, whatever his name is.

She would therefore become privy to internal F1 information, and some team principles appear to believe that there is or maybe there is a potential possibility that some of that information, which may or may not be about some of the other teams, is being passed over during pillow talk.

I think that in fact Susie Wolff works for FOM, not FIA. The articles suggest that Toto seemed to know more about FOM matters than anyone without inside information would know (in the opinion of some other Team Principals).

[bjohnsonsmith]

F1 Academy was founded by FOM in November 2022 and on 1 March 2023, Susie Wolff was appointed the managing director for the series.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

If the scenario you are postulating is true, (that the wolf's leaked confidential information) where did it coe from?

First, nice post. But to be clear, I don't really have an opinion one way or another that the Wolfe's are guilty of anything. I think details were leaked from the FIA side and that it ended up becoming public. But have no idea who received what and when. The Wolfe's are the target of the investigation, so their actions or potential actions will be talked about. I am generally talking hypotheticals in regards to them.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Is it information they had a right to know?
Was it leaked to them by someone in the FIA?

Who knows what arrangement exists between FIA and FOM. For example there may be an agreement in which specific people inside FOM do know confidential information about FIA investigations and this may (should) be protected by NDA agreements (or similar). Both FIA and FOM should have employee agreements that cover this type of thing (punishment if confidential information is improperly released). Most all businesses do this. So the point is that the leak could have been from FIA itself, or it could have come from any third party who was officially "in the know" (such as maybe FOM)

And my earlier point is that the leaker might have been from FIA. If the FIA compliance team is doing the investigation and... the leak could have came from inside the FIA and maybe even that team? The potential for the FIA investigation to be self serving is real and should be called out. I am surprised the press is not talking that up. If you are trying to roast a F1 team principle you need to do your investigation right.

If we go down the Susie Wolfe path, as pointed out, she is not an employee of FIA, but rather FOM. And assuming the leak came via FOM, IMHO, it is highly unlikely that she should have been in the list of people who should have known the details. But as I call out in my first post, things like NDAs can be helpful, but grapevine talk is a real thing. Again, the Susie path is a hypothetical here.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Are they merely pawns in a game of chess between FOM and the FIA?
Is this simply another brokerage in the power game between FOM and the FIA?

This probably factors into why and/or how it is being investigated.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

The whole thing is faulty.

Probably. No system is perfect. In general I think it could work. The separation of FOM and FIA should actually help IMHO.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

IMSA doesn't have this problem, nor IndyCar or NASCAR.

I haven't put much thought into the topic of how those other series are governed, but I suspect there are a few other factors at play. Series like IMSA, Indycar or NASCAR probably don't have "open questions" such as budget cap compliance that stretches on for months and months. So the longer a secret has to be kept, the more likely it can slip out and create drama. Who knows how many people officially and unofficially knew the details of the financial compliance stuff when it went public! Also, regardless of what you think of the relative position of F1 vs. the other series, I suspect the stakes are higher in F1 (due to money) so the internal game is played harder. Do those other series have to sit on juicy secrets like this for a long time?

To argue against my comment of proper governance requires separation of duties, it can be done inside a single organization. It is done every day in the normal business world for businesses that operation in a highly regulated way. In which compliance drives many decisions. Pharmaceutical, financial and even things like data privacy laws (GDPR) drive internal compliance teams to enforce (or try to enforce) compliance, segregation of duties, etc. This typically also includes external audits to examine evidence of compliance as well as higher oversight (but sometimes infrequent) by some regulatory agency. But those also can regularly fail as in the end they are self governing and if the organization wants to act in a corrupt way they can do it until exposed. There are plenty of examples of this type of "self regulation" and "self audit" failing badly.

You can also have structures in which you have built in internal conflicts of interest. Take the US government agencies of FAA and NTSB. FAA has a mandate to (my definition) "promote and regulate air travel". Those two goals are at odds with each other. If you impose strict safety rules, then you are hurting the commercial side which should be promoting. The NTSB will investigate causes of crashes and make recommendations, but can't force those to be adopted. The adoption (or not) is decided by the FAA, but they may (and do) sit on those recommendations and not implement them as the "promote" side of the house doesn't want to see them implemented (cost reasons). This is even if there are multiple and ongoing examples of the root cause of accidents/death being tracked back to something that could have been solved by adoption of earlier recommendations.

My point in all of this, is that no matter how you set things up, it can have issues. Segregation and clear and non-contradictory goals are needed. And there should be open and clear checks and balances. Lastly, not all series are the same.

Richard

[Tourer]

All the other teams issue statements saying "it wasn't me guv" that made accusations to the FIA.

All seems rather strange - has the FIA really launched an investigation based on a single media report? Beginning to look like some kind of issue between FOM & FIA - all very strange.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

All the other teams issue statements saying "it wasn't me guv" that made accusations to the FIA.

All seems rather strange - has the FIA really launched an investigation based on a single media report? Beginning to look like some kind of issue between FOM & FIA - all very strange.

A few quotes from that article...

But suggestions that team principals objected appears to have been untrue, with all of Mercedes’ rivals declaring they were not involved in any complaints.

No complaints? What exactly is a complaint?

Speaking to Sky Sports News, Horner said: “Look, we have a big rivalry on track but we haven't raised any official complaint, either about Susie or Toto or Mercedes to the FIA.

Oh, no "official complaints". Got it.

If the FIA is going to take the media hit and do the dirty work of investigating, then why would anyone raise their hand and act as a new lightning rod? And why would anyone make a formal complaint? Not making it formal allows the complaint to be made, but to also be able to deny making any such complaint.

Or maybe it is all just from a published media report. But I tend to think not.

Richard

[veeten]

Seems like they're all scared of what could be put out by the Wolffs. Some inconvenient and embarrassing subjects of conversation that these team directors would rather stay buried. If these were released to the public, besides an investigation, there would be one hell of a stink all along the paddock. The amount of verbal and mental gymnastics would make even Simone Biles hand over her gold medals.

[Skam85]

Bonus episode for drive to survive incoming

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I think that in fact Susie Wolff works for FOM, not FIA. The articles suggest that Toto seemed to know more about FOM matters than anyone without inside information would know (in the opinion of some other Team Principals).

Sorry, when I posted that, I had a massive brain fart resulting in my writing absolute rubbish!

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Sorry, when I posted that, I had a massive brain fart resulting in my writing absolute rubbish!

LOL - sounds like my normal state!!

[bathurst77]

Seems that Susie having an official sports management role would be privvy to things team principals wouldnt/shouldnt know and vice versa for Toto.

Im not a Wolff or Merc fan but I dont think it would be deliberate leaking.. Maybe an unthinking remark over their toast and boiled egg one morning.
"i cant go that day as I have a meeting with, about... ohh forget i said that"

[Akrapovic]

I think we need to take a step back and look at the whole circumstance here.

The FIA are investigating the potential leak of information, where a team boss supposedly has additional information he should not have, compared to other team bosses. Every single team has come out in support of the accused. Now we could sit here and say "Well RBR didn't say they believe Susie, they said they didn't complain", but that is splitting hairs. They didn't need to put out a positive message like they did, only for it to be dissected by the F1 world should it turn out they made an unoffical complaint. It's pretty clear that the teams support the Wolffs.

So has F1 put an investigation in place based on a media rumour? Where did that media rumour come from? It came from BusinessF1, and Tom Rubython. Who is Tom and why did he make this accusation? Well Tom is a journalist who has been banned from attending F1 events on numerous occasions. He even tried to sue FOM for not providing circuit accreditation for him - citing the Human Rights Act. He, of course, lost. He has been sued for libel more times than any other British journalist in history, including by Alan Donnelly and Richard Woods - both current FIA employees. He also said the reason that W Series failed is that they did not put the drivers in bikinis and sexualise them - note that not all W Series drivers were of legal age either.

Additionally we have an FIA president who has made comments about women and how he doesn't like it "when they think they're smarter than men". So we have an accusation made by a man who is regularly sued for inappropriate comments and sexualises underage girls, and an investigation from an organisation, the head of which is questionable, and we have, literally, every single team supporting the accused.

The only thing that would make this accusation more ridiculous is if William Storey rocked up and said he was in the Wolffs kitchen when the comment was made.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The only thing that would make this accusation more ridiculous is if William Storey rocked up and said he was in the Wolffs kitchen when the comment was made.

He sponsored the meeting trying to get Rich Energy as the official beverage of the Academy

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I think we need to take a step back and look at the whole circumstance here.

That is a compelling perspective. So.. If it really is nothing more than that media story is Ben Sulayem that dumb to open a can of worms like this? Maybe he is?

Richard

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Richard C

That is a compelling perspective. So.. If it really is nothing more than that media story is Ben Sulayem that dumb to open a can of worms like this? Maybe he is?

Richard

Hence.. why does FOM/Liberty need the FIA?
Surely there is a plan in a drawer somewhere (virtual or otherwise) to develop their own ASN equivalent?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Hence.. why does FOM/Liberty need the FIA?
Surely there is a plan in a drawer somewhere (virtual or otherwise) to develop their own ASN equivalent?

Flip it around a bit... What does "Grand Prix" style racing need with FOM/Liberty? I may have this very much wrong, but isn't the house of cards built in this way...

FIA is the Governing body for "Formula 1"
FOM owns the commercial rights for "Formula 1"
Concorde agreement brings FIA, FOM and teams together for "Formula 1"

If you kick out FIA, does FIA take the existing series of "Formula 1" with them? What does FOM then own? Do they own commercial rights for a series they just walked away from? If a new series (lets call it "Grand Prix 1") is created in which FIA is gone, does FOM have any native rights? I don't think they do.

I think anyone could create a new series and setup their own governance solution (replacement for FIA) and other things like broadcast and other commercial rights. Of course the key thing is to bring the teams into this a they are the asset. Meaning FOM could potentially be left out in the cold. Now, FOM could be the ones to architect/create the break away, but I think the dynamics would change as it is likely to involved ownership by the teams in the new series vs. FOM just owning commercial rights and paying the teams. Does FOM want this (risk of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs for potential of a new goose) or would they rather just have a better working relationship with FIA?

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Flip it around a bit... What does "Grand Prix" style racing need with FOM/Liberty? I may have this very much wrong, but isn't the house of cards built in this way...

FIA is the Governing body for "Formula 1"
FOM owns the commercial rights for "Formula 1"
Concorde agreement brings FIA, FOM and teams together for "Formula 1"

"Grand Prix" style racing doesn't necessarily need FOM/Liberty. There is "Grand Prix" style racing in the US with IndyCar, there is "Grand Prix" style racing in Japan with Super Formula. The difference though, is neither IndyCar or Super Formula have the global reach that Formula 1 has, which has taken a long time to develop and build up over the years.

Originally Posted by Richard C

If you kick out FIA, does FIA take the existing series of "Formula 1" with them? What does FOM then own? Do they own commercial rights for a series they just walked away from? If a new series (lets call it "Grand Prix 1") is created in which FIA is gone, does FOM have any native rights? I don't think they do.

I think anyone could create a new series and setup their own governance solution (replacement for FIA) and other things like broadcast and other commercial rights. Of course the key thing is to bring the teams into this a they are the asset. Meaning FOM could potentially be left out in the cold. Now, FOM could be the ones to architect/create the break away, but I think the dynamics would change as it is likely to involved ownership by the teams in the new series vs. FOM just owning commercial rights and paying the teams. Does FOM want this (risk of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs for potential of a new goose) or would they rather just have a better working relationship with FIA?

Richard

If you kick out the FIA, why would they take "Formula 1" with them? FOM are the commercial rights holders for Formula 1, not the FIA. If FOM were to carry on without the FIA, they would have to set up their own governance.

This nearly happened with the FIA–FOTA dispute, with the FOTA teams announcing their intention to form their own rival breakaway series, on the eve of the 2009 British GP.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

"Grand Prix" style racing doesn't necessarily need FOM/Liberty. There is "Grand Prix" style racing in the US with IndyCar, there is "Grand Prix" style racing in Japan with Super Formula. The difference though, is neither IndyCar or Super Formula have the global reach that Formula 1 has, which has taken a long time to develop and build up over the years.

Right. I understand. My point is that all of these along with "Formula 1" are brands, but are types of racing (for simplification purposes "Grand Prix" racing). My point (and the point of prior break away attempts) is that alternatives can exist. That teams could move away from what is currently "Formula 1" and create a competing series that has the same goals (global championship, pinnacle of open wheel racing, etc.). Which as you call out is not new and has been threatened before!

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If you kick out the FIA, why would they take "Formula 1" with them? FOM are the commercial rights holders for Formula 1, not the FIA. If FOM were to carry on without the FIA, they would have to set up their own governance.

So this goes into exactly what are the limitations of what FOM controls. I know others know the history much better than myself, but it goes back to what I believe is the 100yr lease of the commercial side of F1. That FIA has not leased "all" of F1. I don't know the details, but I assume that if FIA didn't lease F1 in total to BE (now FOM/Liberty) that they hold some part of it. And that might be the rights for governance? Is any of that initial lease agreement public? So my point is (based upon my shaky knowledge and history) that FOM/Liberty might not be able to kick FIA to the curb and continue to run the series as "Formula 1" as they may not have the rights to control ALL of it.

I guess, in the end, I am just giving my opinion on the topic GTRMagic called out of FOM/Liberty moving F1 away from FIA governance. And I suspect that even given the practical challenges of bringing it all inhouse (which are doable) that there may be other implications such as potential legal challenges as well as opening Pandora's box of triggering an entire rethink of the entire structure. More specifically, if the teams watch FOM knock it all over, then why wouldn't they take a larger role including ownership in whatever comes after FIA is gone. With the conclusion being... while FOM is probably very annoyed with FIA, they would much rather repair the relationship vs. initiate a divorce.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

bj, I think you are correct to say that FOM have the rights to the commercial side to F1 and I believe that the original sale to Mr E was for 100 years, or something like that. However, I do believe that the ownership of F1 racing lies with the FIA along with it's governance.

This split of ownership is the outcome from the potential legal action taken by the EU because, prior to that, the EU believed that the "business" of F1 was anticompetitive. In reality nothing much changed, certainly until Liberty came on to the scene, except that it made Mr E even wealthier than he was before.

[Richard C]

I was digging around to understand the topic of "Formula 1" ownership. And given that FOM/Liberty is aways said to own the "commercial rights". So that means they own less than ALL of "Formula 1". So the question is.. if you draw a circle around what is considered to be ALL of "Formula 1", what exists within that circle and who owns what?

I found this article which makes sense to me...

https://www.planetf1.com/news/who-owns-f1-liberty-media

Key quotes from that article. Making some text bold is me, not the article so as to highlight key points...

The Formula One Group is a group of companies which is responsible for the overall organisation, promotion, and use of the sport’s commercial rights. This is different to the FIA’s ownership of the sport.

Formula 1 is one of the world’s most popular sports with a long history dating back to the 1950s. Ownership of the championship outright belongs to the governing body, the FIA, with the France-based organisation owning the rights to the name of the series and its rulebooks, as well as creating the standards for circuit grading, drivers licencing as well as the provision of personnel to enforce said rulebooks.

While the FIA own the series from a sporting perspective, the Formula One Group, under parent company Liberty Media, own the rights to the commercial side of the sport.

My take on this is that... FIA owns the series. The commercialization of the name is probably licensed to FOM/Liberty. But FOM/Liberty probably can't just yank the governance away from FIA and still call it all "Formula 1". FIA and FOM are in bed with each other when it comes to F1.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

bj, I think you are correct to say that FOM have the rights to the commercial side to F1 and I believe that the original sale to Mr E was for 100 years, or something like that. However, I do believe that the ownership of F1 racing lies with the FIA along with it's governance.

This split of ownership is the outcome from the potential legal action taken by the EU because, prior to that, the EU believed that the "business" of F1 was anticompetitive. In reality nothing much changed, certainly until Liberty came on to the scene, except that it made Mr E even wealthier than he was before.

This article from PlanetF1 explains who owns Formula 1.


https://www.planetf1.com/news/who-owns-f1-liberty-media

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I was digging around to understand the topic of "Formula 1" ownership. And given that FOM/Liberty is aways said to own the "commercial rights". So that means they own less than ALL of "Formula 1". So the question is.. if you draw a circle around what is considered to be ALL of "Formula 1", what exists within that circle and who owns what?

I found this article which makes sense to me...

https://www.planetf1.com/news/who-owns-f1-liberty-media

Key quotes from that article. Making some text bold is me, not the article so as to highlight key points...



My take on this is that... FIA owns the series. The commercialization of the name is probably licensed to FOM/Liberty. But FOM/Liberty probably can't just yank the governance away from FIA and still call it all "Formula 1". FIA and FOM are in bed with each other when it comes to F1.

Richard

They've been in bed together, ever since Max Mosely and Bernie ran the show.