79 replies to this topic

[readonly]

Since the FIA only makes bad decisions regarding F1 (moved by mean interests), and it would never allow any other series to be a serious rival to F1, the only solution is the creation of an alternative governing body that does the right thing without FIA aproval.

 

Of course it would be a monstruous endeavour to create such a thing, but, if it was launched by some group, what would you expect from it to satisfy your needs both as a motorsport fan and a racer ?

 

[superden]

Never. Going. To. Happen.

[August]

There are a couple of problems.

By participating in a non-FIA-controlled event, the drivers would become banned in FIA-controlled races. Maybe if a strong enough breakaway organization was founded, that wouldn't be a problem. I mean, if most F1 manufacturers and sponsors founded a new series.

Still, not being controlled by the FIA might cause problems with insurance.

[pdac]

Never. Going. To. Happen.

 

Might happen - just not in our lifetime.

[redreni]

I would only want one thing from a body such as the one you envisage: for it to do the right thing by the sport and disband.

[johnmhinds]

It's pretty pointless to start a thread like this without saying anything that you specifically don't like about how the FIA works, and without telling us why any other new organisations wouldn't have all those same issues.

 

What is the discussion meant to be if you just post "I want something different" with no explanation of what you want it to be different too.

Edited by johnmhinds, 23 January 2017 - 22:54.

[ExFlagMan]

There are a couple of problems.

By participating in a non-FIA-controlled event, the drivers would become banned in FIA-controlled races. Maybe if a strong enough breakaway organization was founded, that wouldn't be a problem. I mean, if most F1 manufacturers and sponsors founded a new series.

Still, not being controlled by the FIA might cause problems with insurance.

Not only the drivers - also the marshals could technically be banned from participating in FIA sanctioned events.

[PayasYouRace]

Do you mean an alternative to the FIA as the worldwide organisation for motoring and sporting governance as a subset or do you mean as a governing body for a top level world championship?

The former is impossible, but the latter would still require FIA involvement even if it came to national representatives of the FIA to handle things.

[PlatenGlass]

There are a couple of problems.

By participating in a non-FIA-controlled event, the drivers would become banned in FIA-controlled races. Maybe if a strong enough breakaway organization was founded, that wouldn't be a problem. I mean, if most F1 manufacturers and sponsors founded a new series.

Still, not being controlled by the FIA might cause problems with insurance.

Are Indycar and NASCAR FIA controlled? If not, presumably drivers from there aren't banned.

Also, if a realistic alternative to the FIA was established, banning drivers from competing in FIA events would look really childish and would be unsustainable in the long term.

Insurance also shouldn't be a problem, as it would just mean organising it.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 23 January 2017 - 21:55.

[Button4life]

I think FIA should be replaced by FIFA. This sport needs more corruption

[Marklar]

Maybe Bernie will create one 

[pacificquay]

Are Indycar and NASCAR FIA controlled? If not, presumably drivers from there aren't banned.Also, if a realistic alternative to the FIA was established, banning drivers from competing in FIA events would look really childish and would be unsustainable in the long term.Insurance also shouldn't be a problem, as it would just mean organising it.

Controlled, no. Affiliated yes.

[readonly]

Controlled, no. Affiliated yes.

Yes they are controlled. They can not go overseas anymore.


Útil now, no one has answered the original question. I did not mean to ask if it is possible or why. I don't like the FIA because I don't trust them, based on its history of bad and corrupt decisions. So I would ask for an organization that is perfectly transparent at least.

Your turn

[warp]

I don't trust them, based on its history of bad and corrupt decisions
 

 

You just described like 99% of sporting governing bodies and actual country/state/city governments...

[Fastcake]

There's a reason most sports are run on the model of one global governing body, composed of a singular representative body from each country.

 

Every time there is more than one organisation attempting to govern a sport, on either a national or international level, it almost always ends to the detriment of everybody involved. It creates overlapping jurisdiction, a confusion of responsibilities, a dilution of the sport through competing championships, and unnecessary infighting and often outright hostile actions. We don't even have to go far from home to see that - we all know the story of the Cart-IRL split, and how damaging that was to American single-seater racing.

 

Motorsport's particular safety issues create additional barriers to an alternate FIA body. The FIA is in charge of most safety aspects of our sport - circuit licensing, car homologation, crash testing, barriers, helmet and overalls, etc - and any new body would have to replace that expertise. Which could easily create problems, particularly with insurance as mentioned, if the new body is seen to more more lax than the FIA. As a hypothetical example, if "alternate FIA" took a grade 2 circuit and declared it safe for F1-equivalent cars, it would create a massive problem.

[Prost1997T]

Yes they are controlled. They can not go overseas anymore.

 

Complete nonsense, both series have done that when it suited them.

[Atreiu]

The alternative is Netflix and Chill.

[jcbc3]

Down with the young 'uns?

 

No, seriously. We will make a new FIA. And it'll be great. 

[Kristian]

A good suggestion is to read Max's book. It has a very good explanation of the history of and why the FIA has ended up as the main governing body of topline European motorsport. It certainly opened my eyes to a few things. 

[HoldenRT]

I've never really understood the FIA, why it exists, why it has the control over the sport that it does, why it's so Euro centric when it's supposed to be an international body.. etc.  But that not curious in order to read Max's thoughts to find out why.

[PlatenGlass]

Bernie's probably reading this thread looking for ideas.

[Szoelloe]

Since the FIA only makes bad decisions regarding F1 (moved by mean interests), and it would never allow any other series to be a serious rival to F1, the only solution is the creation of an alternative governing body that does the right thing without FIA aproval.

 

Of course it would be a monstruous endeavour to create such a thing, but, if it was launched by some group, what would you expect from it to satisfy your needs both as a motorsport fan and a racer ?

 

Nope

[pdac]

I've never really understood the FIA, why it exists, why it has the control over the sport that it does, why it's so Euro centric when it's supposed to be an international body.. etc.  But that not curious in order to read Max's thoughts to find out why.

 

I thought it was simply that cars appeared, owners started clubs and started racing them and then someone came along and, effectively, formed a club of clubs - which became the FIA.

[readonly]

There's a reason most sports are run on the model of one global governing body, composed of a singular representative body from each country.

Every time there is more than one organisation attempting to govern a sport, on either a national or international level, it almost always ends to the detriment of everybody involved. It creates overlapping jurisdiction, a confusion of responsibilities, a dilution of the sport through competing championships, and unnecessary infighting and often outright hostile actions. We don't even have to go far from home to see that - we all know the story of the Cart-IRL split, and how damaging that was to American single-seater racing.

Motorsport's particular safety issues create additional barriers to an alternate FIA body. The FIA is in charge of most safety aspects of our sport - circuit licensing, car homologation, crash testing, barriers, helmet and overalls, etc - and any new body would have to replace that expertise. Which could easily create problems, particularly with insurance as mentioned, if the new body is seen to more more lax than the FIA. As a hypothetical example, if "alternate FIA" took a grade 2 circuit and declared it safe for F1-equivalent cars, it would create a massive problem.

Having an alternative FIA would be harmful only if the current one was doing things right. In its current state motorsport would benefit from some competition. I am only asking what you need from such hipothetical organization to make it a real contender and tempt you to forget about being part of the current FIA.

I would require for instance:
1.- to be open to more people.
2.- to be open to any technology
3.- to have a clear feeder system for drivers/teams growth.
Etc.

Edited by readonly, 24 January 2017 - 22:34.

[pdac]

Having an alternative FIA would be harmful only if the current one was doing things right. In its current state motorsport would benefit from some competition. I am only asking what you need from such hipothetical organization to make it a real contender and tempt you to forget about being part of the current FIA.

I would require for instance:
1.- to be open to more people.
2.- to be open to any technology
3.- to have a clear feeder system for drivers/teams growth.
Etc.

 

The only thing that temps anyone away from an established organisation like the FIA is the prospect of getting more money somehow.

[Wuzak]

I've never really understood the FIA, why it exists, why it has the control over the sport that it does, why it's so Euro centric when it's supposed to be an international body.. etc.  But that not curious in order to read Max's thoughts to find out why.

 

It was a motoring organisation created to promote the interests of motorists, initially in France, then in Europe.

 

While the FIA did not invent Grand Prix Racing (the ACO did that), they have been the rule makers since just after WW1.

 

In the '20s and '30s they organised the European Championship.

 

In the '30s they came up with the weight limit class - maximum 750kg - which gave us monsters such as the W125. And they replaced that in 1938 with rules for 3l supercharged cars (can't recall what unsupercharged capacity was allowed, if at all) and the Voiturette class, which featured 1.5l supercharged cars, including the Alfa Romeo 158.

 

In 1947 the FIA introduced the Formula 1 class for 1.5l supercharged and 4.5l unsupercharged Grand Prix cars. They did this mostly so that pre-war Voiturettes could be used.

 

In 1950 the FIA introduced the World Championship. It was raced entirely in Europe, but also included the Indianapolis 500 as a points race, but not to F1 rules.

 

So why does the FIA have control over the sport? Probably its control increased as motor racing became more safety conscious, a central body for setting most of the safety standards was logical. In terms of F1, the control they exert is because they OWN Formula One. Liberty is often described as the new owners of F1, but in reality they just own a long term lease to the commercial rights.

 

 

Why is it so Euro-centric - because it grew up in France and Europe.

Edited by Wuzak, 24 January 2017 - 23:54.

[Wuzak]

Having an alternative FIA would be harmful only if the current one was doing things right. In its current state motorsport would benefit from some competition. I am only asking what you need from such hipothetical organization to make it a real contender and tempt you to forget about being part of the current FIA.

I would require for instance:
1.- to be open to more people.
2.- to be open to any technology
3.- to have a clear feeder system for drivers/teams growth.
Etc.

 

To have competition between series you do not need to replace the FIA.

 

You could create your own body for your category to create rules and run a series, affiliate with the FIA so you don't have to reinvent all the safety standards, etc, and you could go racing. Good luck competing with F1.

 

I would like to know what you mean by your criteria.

 

What do you mean Open to more people?

I think the FIA is open to technology, but they quest for safety and some control of cost has seen technologies curbed. Plus, of course, the need to give drivers control of the cars.

 

And considering the FIA started Formula E and are creating a robo-race series, I should think they are very open to new technology.

 

There was a clear feeder system - F3 -> F2 -> F1. But loads of new categories have popped up, including GP2 and GP3 which are run by FOM.

 

It also has to be seen that they rules process has largely been taken out of the FIA's control, with the strategy group being formed several years ago.

[readonly]

I thik now that I should have asked first if you are part of the FIA or get some income from it or from some of its affiliates. This would give readers a better perspective when you comment about the existence of an alternative FIA. This because FIA insiders will surely not cooperate in the creation of this alternate FIA simply because they would be defending their own organization and income. I am not a FIA insider btw. Back to the subject...

[Gretsch]

I thik now that I should have asked first if you are part of the FIA or get some income from it or from some of its affiliates. This would give readers a better perspective when you comment about the existence of an alternative FIA. This because FIA insiders will surely not cooperate in the creation of this alternate FIA simply because they would be defending their own organization and income. I am not a FIA insider btw. Back to the subject...

They would not not cooperate in creating a competition for their own organization because that is the decent thing to do, regardless of what company or organization you work for. I'm not sure what you are asking for, yes I've read your OP, but it seems to me that you have forgotten that FiA, like any organisation, are primarily looking at their own interests. The interest of an organisation with members, like the FiA, is the interest of the members. Todt cannot just start giving away stuff they own. 

FiA will, of course, try to make life harder for any competitor and double so if someone wants to compete with F1. F1 is the pinnacle, Formula One, the primary formula. No car can be faster around a track than a Formula One car because if it is, it's formula automatically becomes the #1 formula, the Formula One. 

There is no law against trying, anyone can start a competing series, stipulate a formula that blows the current F1 into oblivion. You can do it. Start now. But don't expect FiA to help you.

[readonly]

 

To have competition between series you do not need to replace the FIA.
 
You could create your own body for your category to create rules and run a series, affiliate with the FIA so you don't have to reinvent all the safety standards, etc, and you could go racing. Good luck competing with F1.

I think the FIA will treat any F1 rival as being too dangerous and hamper this way its development towards being the new pinnacle of motorsports. I wish I was wrong, really, but given that they have been acting very wrongly and that they do earn money from F1, I tend to think I am right.

 
I would like to know what you mean by your criteria.
 
What do you mean Open to more people?

I mean that they could accept many more competitors by being less elitist. They could accept competitors, for instance, that only enter their local race or a few races. They could also organize championships at different levels (continental, national,etc) i.e. create a popular level F1.

I think the FIA is open to technology, but they quest for safety and some control of cost has seen technologies curbed. Plus, of course, the need to give drivers control of the cars.
 

No, they are not open enough. A lot of technology limits are imposed for the wrong reasons. The excuse is sometimes safety but in depth they are protecting their own mean interests. Sometimes the excuse is cost cutting but they achieve nothing but lame results for real technollogical advances and dull races. Leveling the field is another excuse but this is F1 and technical freedom is a must. Let other forms of racing have equal cars, not F1.

And considering the FIA started Formula E and are creating a robo-race series, I should think they are very open to new technology.
 

Those are like different sports to me. Without full technical freedom (not just electric engines) mixed with human input (driving) the game is totally different. What is needed is racing at the top of the top, this is, looking the best possible machine/human combo to go from point A to B in the shortest time through the challenges that a racing circuit imposes.

There was a clear feeder system - F3 -> F2 -> F1. But loads of new categories have popped up, including GP2 and GP3 which are run by FOM.
 

That is no real feeder. Any champion there can't be sure to be promoted to the higher levels. A sport needs clear rules and system to get to the top. I am saying this not only for drivers, it includes car constructors too.

It also has to be seen that they rules process has largely been taken out of the FIA's control, with the strategy group being formed several years ago.

 
But it has been clearly ineffective to say the least.

[readonly]

 

They would not not cooperate in creating a competition for their own organization because that is the decent thing to do, regardless of what company or organization you work for. I'm not sure what you are asking for, yes I've read your OP, but it seems to me that you have forgotten that FiA, like any organisation, are primarily looking at their own interests. The interest of an organisation with members, like the FiA, is the interest of the members. Todt cannot just start giving away stuff they own. 

I understand the position of FIA insiders. They want to fix it, not fight against it. But they have failed, for decades. If they want to keep trying that is just fine, no one can blame them.

FiA will, of course, try to make life harder for any competitor and double so if someone wants to compete with F1. F1 is the pinnacle, Formula One, the primary formula. No car can be faster around a track than a Formula One car because if it is, it's formula automatically becomes the #1 formula, the Formula One. 

There is no law against trying, anyone can start a competing series, stipulate a formula that blows the current F1 into oblivion. You can do it. Start now. But don't expect FiA to help you.

 
Now we are talking. A rival pinnacle of motorsports needs to be outside the FIA.

Back to the original question. Who wants to give input for such a thing ? Are you afraid of retaliation ?

[Gretsch]

 Are you afraid of retaliation ?

My lips are sealed

[August]

You could create your own body for your category to create rules and run a series, affiliate with the FIA so you don't have to reinvent all the safety standards, etc, and you could go racing. Good luck competing with F1.

 

When CART was starting to really compete with F1, FIA came up with the rule that prevented them racing on road courses outside North America (Surfers was grandfathered). So really, FIA is making it hard to compete with F1.

[readonly]

When CART was starting to really compete with F1, FIA came up with the rule that prevented them racing on road courses outside North America (Surfers was grandfathered). So really, FIA is making it hard to compete with F1.

 

Exactly. Since F1 is being badly managed (on purpose) the rest of the world of motorsports suffers. Who really wants to keep going in this direction ?

[Gretsch]

When CART was starting to really compete with F1, FIA came up with the rule that prevented them racing on road courses outside North America (Surfers was grandfathered). So really, FIA is making it hard to compete with F1.

I think the "rule" was simply a contract with track owners with words the effect of "we can veto any event on this track". So it was free to come to Europe, just not to any of the tracks the FiA controlled. 

I might be wrong, I did not fact check what I wrote above, I just recalled memories. Oh, those memories.. Francisca, Jane, Elizabeth.... I think I'll  take a bath! Enjoy this fruitful discussion.

[Kristian]

Bernie's probably reading this thread looking for ideas.

 

You would think so, but then remember he's scared of the internet. 

[August]

I think the "rule" was simply a contract with track owners with words the effect of "we can veto any event on this track". So it was free to come to Europe, just not to any of the tracks the FiA controlled. 

I might be wrong, I did not fact check what I wrote above, I just recalled memories. Oh, those memories.. Francisca, Jane, Elizabeth.... I think I'll  take a bath! Enjoy this fruitful discussion.

 

As I remember it, one of the conditions for CART to be FIA-affiliated (which is very much a must for any series) was not to race on road courses outside North America (apart from Surfers Paradise where they were already). That's why those new ovals in Germany, UK, Japan, and the oval layout at Rio. Montreal was the only F1 venue hosting CART/CCWS as it was a road course in North America.

 

Later the FIA allowed CCWS to road courses at Brand Hatch, Assen, Zolder, and the streets of Sao Paulo. It may be that they had removed that condition from the FIA affiliation because of 1) antitrust laws and/or 2) CCWS/IRL not longer being threats to F1.

[Szoelloe]

Since the FIA only makes bad decisions regarding F1 (moved by mean interests), and it would never allow any other series to be a serious rival to F1, the only solution is the creation of an alternative governing body that does the right thing without FIA aproval.

 

Of course it would be a monstruous endeavour to create such a thing, but, if it was launched by some group, what would you expect from it to satisfy your needs both as a motorsport fan and a racer ?

 

No.

[Gretsch]

 (which is very much a must for any series)

I'm not sure how to read that - is it illegal to run a racing series without being FiA-affiliated or is just very unpractical?

[Berner]

Quote: "I might be wrong, I did not fact check what I wrote above, I just recalled memories. Oh, those memories.. Francisca, Jane, Elizabeth.... I think I'll  take a bath! "

 

Wait a minute.... Francisca, Jane.... were you in that hash filled tea house in Kabul, circa '71? Don't recall an Elizabeth but the yak butter lamps were kind of dim. Not much in the way of racing, bar the camels.

[Gretsch]

Quote: "I might be wrong, I did not fact check what I wrote above, I just recalled memories. Oh, those memories.. Francisca, Jane, Elizabeth.... I think I'll  take a bath! "

 

Wait a minute.... Francisca, Jane.... were you in that hash filled tea house in Kabul, circa '71? Don't recall an Elizabeth but the yak butter lamps were kind of dim. Not much in the way of racing, bar the camels.

She arrived late... my lips are sealed!

[PayasYouRace]

I'm not sure how to read that - is it illegal to run a racing series without being FiA-affiliated or is just very unpractical?

Any competitor found racing outside FIA affiliated events, such as illegal street racing, would likely lose their racing license and would effectively end their career outside pirate events. Similarly, any circuit hosting non FIA approved motorsport would likely lose all their events. It would be suicide for either.

The FIA is much more than just F1 and forms a baseline for all legitimate motorsport woldwide, either directly or via national associations. A pirate series would be limited to pirate competitors and pirate circuits. You wouldn't be able to have a Barrichello doing Indycar or a Webber doing Le Mans.

[Gretsch]

Any competitor found racing outside FIA affiliated events, such as illegal street racing, would likely lose their racing license and would effectively end their career outside pirate events. Similarly, any circuit hosting non FIA approved motorsport would likely lose all their events. It would be suicide for either.

The FIA is much more than just F1 and forms a baseline for all legitimate motorsport woldwide, either directly or via national associations. A pirate series would be limited to pirate competitors and pirate circuits. You wouldn't be able to have a Barrichello doing Indycar or a Webber doing Le Mans.

OK. I guess that does not leave much to discuss then. There are no alternatives to FiA and it is not possible to create one.

[PayasYouRace]

Maybe not impossible, but it wouldn't be a good idea. Even if Alt-FIA has impeccable safety standards and had series with well thought out rules providing good racing, how would you attract competitors and venues willing to risk their livelihood?

And then you're assuming that Alt-FIA would be more competent and less corrupt to actually be an improvement.

[Gretsch]

And then you're assuming that Alt-FIA would be more competent and less corrupt to actually be an improvement.

I'm certain it would be - for the first three years ;)

[Wuzak]

When CART was starting to really compete with F1, FIA came up with the rule that prevented them racing on road courses outside North America (Surfers was grandfathered). So really, FIA is making it hard to compete with F1.

 

 

That was in the 1990s.

 

That was before the European Union used competition policy to force the FIA to separate itself from the commercial side of the sport, leading to the ridiculous 100 year lease that Bernie paid a pittance for.

 

The treatment of CART in that instance was probably one of the main reason the EU got involved in the first place.

 

And Bernie was probably the one behind it - I can't recall if he had a position in the FIA at the time as well as FOM, but he certainly benefited greatly from the EU ruling, and he certainly had the ear of the FIA president of the time, his buddy Max.

[Wuzak]

OK. I guess that does not leave much to discuss then. There are no alternatives to FiA and it is not possible to create one.

 

It would be possible, but it would take a lot of work.

 

You would have to get the FIA's motorsport affiliates to come to your organisation in order to be able to create a series without FIA's involvement.

[Wuzak]

I think the FIA will treat any F1 rival as being too dangerous and hamper this way its development towards being the new pinnacle of motorsports. I wish I was wrong, really, but given that they have been acting very wrongly and that they do earn money from F1, I tend to think I am right.

As I said before, the FIA is separated from teh commercial side of the sport, in theory, and don't derive much income from the sport - not as much as they should, anyway.

Part of the reason we have the Strategy Group is because the FIA wasn't getting enough money to cover the costs of its activities at races. In return for the Strategy Group teh FIA received a share in F1, so get some income.

They also derive income from superlicence fees, which in recent years have increased substantially.

And there is no reason why your rival to F1 series can't pay the FIA a fee for their services, giving them a stake in your success too.

 

I mean that they could accept many more competitors by being less elitist. They could accept competitors, for instance, that only enter their local race or a few races. They could also organize championships at different levels (continental, national,etc) i.e. create a popular level F1.

There are no restrictions as to entries into the FIA World Championship except that you must prove financial viability and show that your have the facilities to design and construct your own car.

Competitors in the F1 World Championship sign a contract with FOM that requires participation at all events. That is the restriction on teams entering just a few races.

National level F1 events? F1 cars are enormously expensive, and I doubt any motorsport body could justify using them for a national series. But let's say that some could, they wouldn't be able to run the current F1 gear, as the teams would guard them jealously. Instead they would run one or two year old cars, and would likely fail to qualifyif they were granted a wild card entry to a World Championship Grand Prix.

Part of the problem is that FOM does not pay new competitors for a year or two, and the funding is disproportionate, meaning that small teams fail. Regularly.

No, they are not open enough. A lot of technology limits are imposed for the wrong reasons. The excuse is sometimes safety but in depth they are protecting their own mean interests. Sometimes the excuse is cost cutting but they achieve nothing but lame results for real technollogical advances and dull races. Leveling the field is another excuse but this is F1 and technical freedom is a must. Let other forms of racing have equal cars, not F1.

A lot of the technology restrictions are to maintain the relevance of the driver. Such as 4 wheel drive, anti-lock brakes, 4-wheel steer. Others, such as active suspension, are there to limit performance and/or cost.

Those are like different sports to me. Without full technical freedom (not just electric engines) mixed with human input (driving) the game is totally different. What is needed is racing at the top of the top, this is, looking the best possible machine/human combo to go from point A to B in the shortest time through the challenges that a racing circuit imposes.

The point at which unrestricted formula cars could perform at a level which a human driver could not cope was passed some time ago. The best possible machine/human combo is one where the human has very little input. Which would not go down very well with a large portion of teh F1 fan base.

That is no real feeder. Any champion there can't be sure to be promoted to the higher levels. A sport needs clear rules and system to get to the top. I am saying this not only for drivers, it includes car constructors too.

It's not like European football, where top teams are promoted from one division to another, while the bottom teams are relegated.

The step from a second level team to F1 is huge. You are going from a single make (or chassis) championship into one where you have a unique car. 2nd level teams do not have the facilities to just start building F1 cars, so that is not a possibility.

In terms of drivers, there are so many seats. Are you now going to force some to go back to a minor racing series, so the 2nd tier champion can come into F1?

But it has been clearly ineffective to say the least.

Yes, and that is probably by (Bernie's) design. With team self interest, as well as the interests of FOM and the FIA, there is a lot of conflict which makes good rule making difficult.

[Wuzak]

Exactly. Since F1 is being badly managed (on purpose) the rest of the world of motorsports suffers. Who really wants to keep going in this direction ?

That's not all down to the FIA.

FOM hold more than a little blame on this count.

[Fastcake]

The thing is readonly, you don't have to abandon the FIA to achieve what you want.

One of the main aspects of the EU competition ruling was the requirement on the FIA to act as an impartial regulator for all motor sport, without prejudice towards the non-FIA owned series. The FIA gained general recognition as the governing body within Europe, in return for the commitment to abide by those rules, and divest itself of the commercial interest from the FIA championships; hence the 100 year deal. The FIA can set some standards, but once met they have to sanction any series or organisation that applies for recognition.

So why would you need an alternate FIA? You can set up a series, or a ladder of series, create a set of technical regulations, or utilise any of the existing regulations on offer, create your own race format, and as long as you follow the International Sporting Code, have your technical and sporting regulations signed off, and work with the national motorsport authorities, you've got the broad ability to act as you wish.

Any competitor found racing outside FIA affiliated events, such as illegal street racing, would likely lose their racing license and would effectively end their career outside pirate events. Similarly, any circuit hosting non FIA approved motorsport would likely lose all their events. It would be suicide for either.
The FIA is much more than just F1 and forms a baseline for all legitimate motorsport woldwide, either directly or via national associations. A pirate series would be limited to pirate competitors and pirate circuits. You wouldn't be able to have a Barrichello doing Indycar or a Webber doing Le Mans.

 

Indeed, the potential penalties the FIA can hand out for competing in non-FIA affliated events would act as a barrier to any interested parties. Why risk your career or business on an unproven alternate structure? And for a circuit in particular, with all the liability and insurance issues, it adds another costly barrier. In practice though, I suspect the FIA would run foul of competition law if it went too far in shutting down a rival operation, but it could still make life plenty difficult.

 

 And Bernie was probably the one behind it - I can't recall if he had a position in the FIA at the time as well as FOM, but he certainly benefited greatly from the EU ruling, and he certainly had the ear of the FIA president of the time, his buddy Max.

Bernie used to be the FIA vice-president for promotional affairs - a sinecure of Max, of course - while the FIA were trying to acquire the commercial rights for all international motorsport, not just FIA events, and hand them to Bernie to manage on their behalf. It was a total disgrace.