The president of the FIA, Jean Todt, has said he believes the organisation should take a greater role in how Formula One is run, after the sport’s governance came under considerable criticism in the early part of the 2016 season.
Todt, who was speaking at the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile’s sport conference in Turin, said the FIA should have “more autonomy to make the final decision” on rules and regulations in F1. The sport had drawn attention to the convoluted and arcane nature of its ruling structure when a new qualifying system was imposed, which proved to be universally unpopular with teams and fans. Partly as a consequence but also pre-empted by concern over the sport, the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association wrote an open letter stating that “the decision-making process in the sport is obsolete and ill-structured and prevents progress being made”.
After unanimous agreement by the teams, the qualifying rules reverted to last year’s format within two grands prix of their implementation. But, equally, the complex decision-making process was further emphasised by the way the new technical regulations for 2017 were constantly pushed back this year because of a failure to reach an agreement. Although now ratified, they remain contentious.
“The governing body has not enough power, or influence to have the final say on the rules,” said Todt. The 70-year-old Frenchman is aware that the way F1 is currently run makes for a difficult balancing act but believes the process could remain inclusive. “If you want to have the participation of teams, of manufacturers, they must support what you are doing,” he said. “Very often manufacturers are involved because they feel it is a strong marketing tool, a strong laboratory for them. So it is essential you listen to them – it is a way of leadership. For me I like to hear what people think, not only manufacturers but fans and journalists.”
However, Todt was also clear he believed the process could be more decisive, while remaining in a constructive relationship with the sports commercial rights holder, Formula One Management, represented by Bernie Ecclestone. “At the end of the day we should have much more autonomy to make the final decisions,” he said.
“But after having listened to the others. It is important you have bodies that are participating to influence but at the end of the day it is the governing body that is making the final decision.” It would require, he added, “the very strong support of the promoter, because the promoter has the responsibility to sell the show. It would be unfair to say we are going to dictate that and you must sell the show.”
The sport’s regulations are currently set by a procedure involving the F1 strategy group, the F1 commission and the World Motor Sport Council. The strategy group, consists of five permanent members, Red Bull, Mercedes, Ferrari, McLaren and Williams plus the highest non-qualifying team (Force India) and Ecclestone, representing FOM, and Todt the FIA, where each party has equal weight.
However, at the commission the teams have 11 votes, an advantage against the 15 divided between FOM, the FIA, race promoters, partners, engine suppliers and sponsors.
The vested interests of the teams, both in regulations and in division of revenue, have caused many of the problems of governance, with Ecclestone increasingly frustrated that he can no longer impose changes as he used to. The situation is unlikely to change in the short term, however, with Todt acknowledging that the Concorde Agreement, the contract between teams, FIA and FOM, will be renewed only in 2020. Going forward, he said, the FIA’s focus should be on “the renegotiation of the Concorde Agreement, with the strong issue of governance”.
Under his broader remit, Todt, who has been a vigorous campaigner for road safety since he became president in 2009, also noted that motor sport’s long-term goal must be to increase its social responsibility. “It has to be sustainable,” in the future, he said. “It cannot be excluded that there will people who will be saying that it is damaging society. That’s why you have to be very careful on safety and public opinion is very important. On pollution and the environment, it has to be politically correct.”
