I seem to remember reading that contracts with circuits and TV companies state that there will be a minimum of 18 cars racing. So I think Bernie is just trying to avoid breach of contract if too many teams fold.
I don't know what the deal is now with the separate commercial arrangements for each team, but I'm sure under the Concorde agreements it was established that if there weren't enough cars on the grid, the remaining teams would be obligated to field three cars. I can't believe CVC would have allowed the teams to negotiate their way out of that commitment, as it's an important safety net for the sport if we have another 2009 situation where the manufacturers are pulling the plug, and the independent teams are struggling to survive. Assuming that's still the case, what Bernie is actually saying to the manufacturers is "look, the small teams are going to die, but don't expect me to do anything about it. I'm not giving them any more FOM money. I don't care what happens to them. If they die, it's going to cost you money, because you're going to have to take their place."
It would be interesting to try to work out whether the big teams would be worse or better off if this happened. Because if another three teams went to the wall, the FOM money those teams currently get would be added to the pot and shared out between the remaining teams, but would it be enough to offset the cost of running another car. If you're already constructing two F1 cars, the extra cost of a third one is going to be a lot less than what the first two cost, surely? But it will cost just as much to run. You'll need to increase the size of your race team by at least a third I'd have thought, to be able to handle another car. But the extra R&D cost would be zero. This could end up happening.
