38 replies to this topic

[Roger Clark]

As I understand these things, since 1947 the Federation Internationale de L'Automobile has ultimate control of all motor sport throughout the world. From 1922 to 1947 control was exercised by its predecessor, the Association Internationale des Automobile Clubs Reconnus. The authority is, or was until recently, exercised through the International Sporting Commission and, where appropriate, delegated to national sporting associations (the Royal Automobile Club, and now the Motor Sports Association in the UK).

Any event not recognised by the FIA is in some sense illegal and dire consequences await those who take part in them. I know that there have been such events, the 1980 Spanish Grand Prix is one such, but hte withdrawal of Renault, Ferrari and Alfa Romeo from that race was because it was not sanctioned by the FIA. It was not because the race did not count for world championship points. This seems to me to prove the point.

My question is: where does the FIA get its authority? Is it ceded to it by national governments or the UN, or is it because things have always been that way? The name of the AIACR suggests that it was formed by clubs which already existed and were recognised, presumably by their national governments, but I don't think I have ever seen a clear answer to the original question.

And while I'm on the subject, does the CSI still exist? I don't think I've heard of it for many years; control now seems to be exercised directly by the CSI.

[Don Capps]

The "Sporting Power entrusted to the FIA as regards motoring sport originates in the uniting of the powers detained in their respective countries by the ACNs. This power is therefore a common property.

Thus spake the words contained in the 1972 FIA Year Book of Automobile Sport. The agent of the FIA -- and earlier the AIACR -- was the CSI. In 1978, J-M Balestre changed the CSI to the FISA and set about making the FISA the actual power in international motorsports. Heretofore, the CSI was pretty much tolerated and only really had an effect on a relatively small handful of countries -- all on the CSI incidentially, hmmmm -- who allowed The Blazers to roam free.

Natiurally, those lacking a Blazer -- those who actually drove, serviced or owned the cars -- considered the CSI a colossal joke and worked around The Blazers as best they could.

[David McKinney]

My understanding is that the FIA is, if you like, a collective whose members are the respective ASNs. The organisations representing member nations get together and jointly decide what they will all be bound by. It works only with the approval of member organisations, and only as long as they continue to give their support.
The real question, surely, is not so much where the FIA gets its authority, but where the ASNs get theirs.
On your other point, I believe the CSI was replaced by FISA, but I think that's now gone too.

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Don Capps
[b] Heretofore, the CSI was pretty much tolerated and only really had an effect on a relatively small handful of countries -- all on the CSI incidentially, hmmmm -- who allowed The Blazers to roam free.

Natiurally, those lacking a Blazer -- those who actually drove, serviced or owned the cars -- considered the CSI a colossal joke and worked around The Blazers as best they could.

I find this a little surprising as I thought that the CSI specified the formulae under which international competitions were run, the rules for world championships and much else besides. I know that some countries made their own rules for purely local competitions.

As David says, where do the ASNs get their authority?

[Don Capps]

I have dragged out my motley collection of Yellow Books and taken a gander at what they have about this issue. Basically, the ASN -- only one per customer -- is defined along these lines: "Normally, the Club or Association which has been entitled to exercise the Sporting Power exercises this authority directly and throughout its national territory, through its 'Sporting Commission' whihc constitutes a special executive body."

Still with me? The holder of the Sporting Power may delgate this power another organization. "The Club or Association having received authority to delegate its Sporting Power remains the holder of said Power, and consequently remains alone responsible before the FIA for the use made of the Power."

More: "Delegations are temporary. They may be revoked by decisions of the FIA, at the request of the holder, or failing such a request, if the situation so requires." Even more: "As can be seen, the FIA has provided for the greatest possible flexibility in the exercise of this sporting power throughout the world..... Thus the exercise of authority acquires unity: a requirement essential for the harmonious development of motor sport."

The short answer is that the ASN derives its power from becoming the mere possession of that power in the eyes of the FIA.

I also would like to remind folks that the idea of the CSI being "international" was largely in the sense of being European. The CSI never really carried much weight in the USA or other corners of the globe until it went out of existence in 1978 and morphed into the FISA which was far, far more aggressive in the pursuit and recognition of power than the CSI ever was.

[Ian Stewart]

The ASNs' authority seems to derive primarily from nothing more than their existence and, crucially, their recognition by the FIA.

An idea of the set-up can be found in Canada's http://www.asncanada...bout/index.html, whereas the FIA's http://www.fia.com is as clear as mud!

P.S.
You beat me to it Don!

[Mike Argetsinger]

Originally posted by Don Capps

I also would like to remind folks that the idea of the CSI being "international" was largely in the sense of being European. The CSI never really carried much weight in the USA or other corners of the globe until it went out of existence in 1978 and morphed into the FISA which was far, far more aggressive in the pursuit and recognition of power than the CSI ever was.

On this point I must respectfully disagree, Don - at least in terms of the importance of the CSI in the USA prior to 1978. I believe it carried a great deal of weight - all of the sanctioning bodies participated through their membership in ACCUS (formed to replace AAA as the effective ACN) and the doling out of international dates plus the promulgation of rules for international categories was very important and a great deal of time, energy and other resources were expended in this regard by all the major sanctioning bodies (USAC, SCCA, NHRA, NASCAR I believe - from memory, I may be missing one - were the original members of ACCUS and other sanctioning bodies gained representation as they came along).

Certainly you are correct in suggesting that the U.S. was carrying on with its own rules and series, etc. without much concern for any international approval. But, as I have said above, the dealings of the CSI were very important in the overall picture and carried weight and importance.

[Don Capps]

Mike, From the 1950's onward, the CSI certainly played a larger role in US racing than it had prior to WW2. As the US turned outward, a participant in the international racing community, the CSI most certainly became more of a factor. The problems that were created when the AAA Contest Board suddenly plugged the plug are well-known, particularly in the creation of the ACCUS. However, the overall effect of the CSI prior to WW2 was perhaps minimal in American motorsports outside the IMS and basically any real effort to stay aligned with the CSI was headed by Pop Myers of the IMS.

Something that intrigues me is the very, very low opinion that racers and team seemed to have for the CSI in contemporary accounts. When reading materials on the racing scene in the 1950's and 1960's in particular, few have much good to say about the CSI. Its almost unerring ability to make decisions guaranteed to provoke the racers seems to emphasize its domination by The Blazers. It was even worse in the 1970's when The Blazers and the racers squared off with Super Blazer (J-M Balestre) wading into the battlefield in 1978 after politicizing the FFSA in the prvious decade or so.

I think that it perhaps best to say that in some circles the CSI did play a role, often a major role in American racing, but for the most part it was something lurking in the background when it came to many aspects of American motor racing. Which would be little different elsewhere as well since much of the national level racing is below the threshold of CSI/FISA/WMSC interest.

[Roger Clark]

Don's view in post #5 (that the ASN derives its power from becoming the mere possession of that power in the eyes of the FIA) is clearly incompatible with David's statement that the FIA is effectively a collective of the ASNs. If Don is correct, where does the FIA derive its power?

[uechtel]

Isn´t it simply a de facto status, very much like the IOC / NOC or other sport organizations? People in a country form a club and these clubs "agree" in establishing an international committee.

I think everybody is free to found a further national and/or world-wide automobile association and to run for example own world championships, just like in boxing or chess. Here in Germany the ADAC and AvD have found a way of peaceful coexistence over the years and together with the DMSB they are members of the FIA...

The matter is only whether you are able to find enough support so that you can get along economically.

[Peter Morley]

It is quite clear that the FIA have no real status. They are a self elected body who have taken it upon themselves to represent the interests of the people who want to join them.

Anyone who wants to run a motor race, can do so without the permission of the FIA - the legal requirements covering the event are set by the local government (or whatever officially elected governing body) not by the FIA.

To protect their own interests (or rather their best mate's interests), the FIA can decide not to hold FIA approved events at a circuit that has held a non-FIA event (but competition law would make doing such a thing rather dangerous to their own existance), but holding a non-FIA event is in no way illegal.

Of course the involvement of the FIA can make organising an event easier, they have a lot of expertise and can help with things like regulations, licencing, insurance, marshalling, promotional rights etc.

But they certainly have no global legal power (e.g. such as the UN does have), and anyone who wants to do so can set up a race series - this of course is one reason why the so called sale of F1 flopped, because there is nothing to sell.

They are just the organisation that organises a large number of events all (??) over the world.

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by Peter Morley


They are just the organisation that organises a large number of events all (??) over the world.

Indeed, but once an organisation becomes "big enough" it becomes difficult to rival it. E.g., it's difficult to imagine a successful soccer setup without FIFA affiliation, and look what happens every time someone tries to set up a "rebel" cricket tour not under the auspices of the ICC...

Boxing is a classic example of what happens if you end up with no one controlling body - you end up with a plethora of meaningless champions and championships and the sport loses credibility.

It seems that US professional sport (and sports-entertainment!) is an interesting case of monopolies evolving - f'rinstnace the NFL is a composite of formerly separate football leagues that have come together, seeing off attempted challengers like the USFL and XFL... similarly NASCAR have usurped other sanctioning bodies in stock-car racing and set up series extending not quite down to grassroots level but certainly a couple of steps above. In "sports entertainment" it's even more blatant - the McMahon clan bought up all its rivals in pro wrestling and actually made fun of it - to the point that the 'storyline' on their wrestling tv shows over the past few years has been dominated by the synthetic machinations between bits of the rival promotions they bought!

(It would've been amusing to see Balestre, Mosley and Ecclestone trading chair-shots in a last-man-standing barbed-wire cage match, mind....)

[Ian Stewart]

Does anyone know what the position would have been if the manufacturers' recently proposed world championship had gone ahead?

If this series was intended to take place outwith the FIA umbrella there would surely have been enormous problems, despite there being no legal monopoly vested in the FIA.

[Wolf]

I'm in no way an expert, but I believe this to be circular reference thing with FIA and ASNs. Power and authority of each ASN must come from executive and legislative powers of a country (otherwise it couldn't be the national governing body)- read groundwork laid by Parliament and decision to grant authority through the same (on Govt. reccomendation). They collectively give hence established respective authorities to FIA, which in turn 'allows' (read: gives their 'birthright' back, with their 'blessing' or approval) such clubs to organize events, &c. Same goes IMO for IOC and is similar to United Nations. UN derives power from its member countries, but being a collective (like Borg, but without 7/9 ) it bestows power on its members through authority recieved from all*... Much like is the case of UN, FIA has, as a collective, grown out of its shoes- framework and people in charge have been blinded by bureucratic 'ideals' and self-delusions into myoptic tail-chasing and power games. In addition- both of them are most powerful agents of NWO, but fail to see the existence therof.

* had my Homeland not been accepted in UN ('92, IIRC)- it would not have been any less a sovereign state deriving her power from within (read, democratic will of citizens thereof). Becoming members of UN, however, provided framework and had powers bestowed upon from collective- like power to declare exclusive economic zone outside territorial waters.

[uechtel]

Originally posted by Wolf
Power and authority of each ASN must come from executive and legislative powers of a country (otherwise it couldn't be the national governing body)- read groundwork laid by Parliament and decision to grant authority through the same (on Govt. reccomendation).

Don´t think that´s the fact in most of the cases. I can not remember our parliament having ever passed a law about which organization is officially allowed to represent Germany in the various kinds of sport nor on the automobile sector. Just like Peter explained it very well in my eyes the ASNs are very much "private" clubs and formed the FIA on "free will".

The only government involvement (at least here in Germany) is, that every club has to fulfill certain requirements to become "legal" (= elect a president in a democratic way, hold a member congress every year, must have a constitution, is not allowed to have illegal aims or methods etc.). More than that the German constitution explicitly allows "freedom of association" for every citizen, no matter on which purpose.

[Wolf]

Uechtel, it's not about freedom of association, for various clubs can exist in any democratic society- but I was speaking of national sporting governing bodies. For a club to become such body, I believe authority must be recieved, for it is no simple association of citizens (a 'mere' club)...

[David McKinney]

No, I'm with uechtel on this.
A national organisation can exist without government approval, and can decide to join an international federation and be bound by its requirements, still without the blessing of its government.
Having said this, I have a suspicion that there is a UK Act of Parliament which acknowledges RAC (now MSA) authority for the control of motorsport within the UK

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by Wolf
Uechtel, it's not about freedom of association, for various clubs can exist in any democratic society- but I was speaking of national sporting governing bodies. For a club to become such body, I believe authority must be recieved, for it is no simple association of citizens (a 'mere' club)...

Perhaps that is the case in certain countries, but generally this is certainly not the case in The West (should that term have any real meaning these days....). "Mere clubs" most certainly did elbow their way into the limelight and without as much as a wink or a nod from the Government took control of those motor sports activities relating to the AIACR/FIA's CSI/FISA/WMSC. No one in the US government selected the ACA or the AAA to be the delegates to the AIACR and the CSI, the ACA was at the table when the Coupe Internationale was being run and just stayed there, the AAA eventually getting its place after arranging to be the USA delegate to the CSI in the late 1920's. Ditto with ACCUS in that it is a cooperative agreement among the various US "clubs" and "associations" involved with motor sports -- the US Congress did not establish it, the member organizations did so the USA would have a place at the CSI table.

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by Ian Stewart
Does anyone know what the position would have been if the manufacturers' recently proposed world championship had gone ahead?

If this series was intended to take place outwith the FIA umbrella there would surely have been enormous problems, despite there being no legal monopoly vested in the FIA.

Ian poses a good question at which there were hints at an answer or response: the FIA would simply "dissolve" the old "FIA F1 WDC" and negotiate a sanctioning agreement with the new GPWC organization to replace the one with FOM. To a large extent, the changes would be simply how the money is divided after the fans and sponsors have been fleeced.

[Wolf]

Hey, I resent the notion 'we here, in the West'! Seriously, I doubt one will find things objecting to customs and practices of 'Western democracies' in any Croatian law (moreso, I think one will find them even more advanced in certain fields, like human and minority rights).

David- the thing You speak of is a 'given'. But each country is bound to have a law on sport activities (and in most cases relevant ministry or govt. dept.). Maybe I overdid it assuming govt. should be the founder of governing bodies, but in any case I think govt. will invariably have to grant permission to perform such a task.

I will use Croatian law for an example which states which subjects can perform sporting activities (individuals, clubs, sporting companies, associations, county/national federations and COC as highest sporting authority). For example, county federation is instituted if more than three clubs, sporting companies or association exist in that county. National federation is established if there are at least three county federations (or three clubs/6c exist in each of three different counties). I'm not entirely sure, but I believe the responsibility to do so lies on clubs/county federations. It is also explicitly stated that only one national federation can be established for paricular sport.

Now, albeit it's not explicitly stated that motor-sport is indeed a sport, it is evident that it is- said document explicitly states that Grobnik racetrack is one of the sport objects of special interest of Republic of Croatia (this interest is defined as right of RoC to set up a company with owner of said property, with no less than 50% stake, based on either invested property or monies for purpose of sporting activities*). And more to the point, penal clauses of said document also prescribe a fine for organizer of sporting event that was not in accordance with regulations set by national federation. It is also stated that competitions are to be organized in accordance with this law and specifications of int'l governing bodies. Most relevant article to this topis is 'right of professional clubs/&c to set up independant club associations only if this is allowed by relevant int'l federation', and similar is said of sporting competitions (in accordance with law, regulations of the sport and norms of int'l federation).

In a nutshell- there can be only one Croatian national automotive federation, it is stated that that association represents given sport in int'l governing body (hence assumes rights and responsibilities) and all sport events in that given sport must comply to regulations of national federation...

* Dino, take note, there is lobbying to be done if we want to see FIM races on Grobnik ;)

[David McKinney]

Originally posted by Wolf
But each country is bound to have a law on sport activities (and in most cases relevant ministry or govt. dept.). Maybe I overdid it assuming govt. should be the founder of governing bodies, but in any case I think govt. will invariably have to grant permission to perform such a task.

Why?

[Wolf]

David- I think that most western countries view sport (both professional, amateur and recreational) as particular interest (most notably for health reasons). Secondly, in most cases govts like to have things and areas paid from budget (most National sporting federations are dependant on the budget) regulated by laws.

[Tim Murray]

Originally posted by David McKinney
No, I'm with uechtel on this.
A national organisation can exist without government approval, and can decide to join an international federation and be bound by its requirements, still without the blessing of its government.
Having said this, I have a suspicion that there is a UK Act of Parliament which acknowledges RAC (now MSA) authority for the control of motorsport within the UK

I remember that when the RAC split up and devolved its motor sporting authority to the MSA, the AA (Automobile Association) apparently put in a bid to take on this role. Whom they approached, and how the choice was decided on, I know not.

[BRG]

I am sure that legislation and regulation will differ from country to country. In the UK, as I understand it, the MSA do not have any legal monopoly on motorsport, much as they would like to persuade people otherwise.

The fact that there are organisations like the autograss racing clubs and assocations and the short-oval stock-car, hot-rod and banger fraternity which grew up outside the MSA control seem to demonstrate this. Both parties have reached accomodations with the MSA, but probably more for convenience than due to any real legal requirement. The MSA are certainly seen as the responsible body by the police and for insurance purposes.

[HDonaldCapps]

The FIA has recently been in the news with several of the member organizations seriously considering either leaving the organization or minimizing their involvement in the wake of the results of the vote of confidence relating to the incumbent president's leisure activities.

The AIACR/FIA along with the CSI and its successors rarely get much discussion here. There was not much written even when the FIA celebrated the centennial of the establishment of the AIACR in June 1904.

It would seem that Roger's question still has not been properly answered or addressed.

If the ADAC, AAA, and a number of other clubs leave the FIA, does it really matter? If so, why?

I am not sure how the ACCUS voted on the issue, but it would be interesting to see how the American contingent handles this.

It is interesting to consider that until recently, scarcely a soul knew who the president of the FIA was, cared, nor did it really seem to matter.

No surprise, but there is far more material available on the history of the AIACR/FIA and its sporting commissions within TNF than probably anywhere else.

[RS2000]

Just stepping back to the last posts from 2003, which I hadn't seen, The UK Government involvement was originally solely in regard to authorisation of motorsport events using public roads. The Government Department concerned (which has probably changed it's name many times since) "delegated" (ie. granted it other than as the result of competitive tendering exercise) that authorisation role to the then RAC (now MSA) in about 1965. There is no legal reason it could not be "delegated" or "contracted out" to another body.

Quite separately, there is a much more recent involvement arising from legisalation to bring private land under the umbrella of "public places" and thus subject to the law on "dangerous driving" etc, aimed primarily at unauthorised "cruises" held in supermarket car parks. Out of that initially ill-conceived legislation came belatedly the list of bodies to be recognised as exempt when authorising organised events on private land. The MSA is just one of those bodies (and, much as it hates the idea, almost certainly does not provide the majority of such events when NASA autograss, all other "short oval" racing, non-MSA karting etc. are included). The MSA thus has no legal or moral remit to represent the UK at any International forum other than one solely dedicated to the specific events the MSA authorises. It's occupation of the UK motorsports seat at the FIA is merely the uncontested continuation of an arrangement dating from the days when all motorsport was effectively run by "gentlemens clubs". In fact when the current Chief Executive of the MSA, Hilton, took over the post, I believe the FIA declined to accept him as a suitably-experienced delegate and Grant, as Chairman of the MSC had to be substituted. Quite an amazing state of affairs, in which the FIA actually reflected the views of many informed UK competitors (from the rally discipline at least).

When I was informally involved helping a small developing country with motorsport regulations (where the cost and complexity of FIA affiliation would be unacceptable at this early stage), the USA situation was often questioned. As far as I could see, the ACCUS representation on the FIA is only as solid as any continuing mutual interest existing between most US sanctioning bodies and the FIA. Does anyone really think NASCAR, NHRA etc would accept real FIA detailed interference in the way other nations do?
From a motorsport aspect, the AAA future involvement with the FIA seems as irrelevant as that of any other non-sanctioning body. I'm not sure of the ADAC role these days. Does it's German motorsport role remain or is it now just a general motoring body? Maybe the real question is: how important financially to the FIA and its role outside the sport is the continued membership of the general motoring (non-motorsport) organisations?

[Racer.Demon]

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
If the ADAC, AAA, and a number of other clubs leave the FIA, does it really matter? If so, why?

Does it really matter? A good question indeed but is that from a FIA point-of-view or from the sport's point-of-view? The point is that the FIA is much more than just the sport's regulator - that's just where we know it from. Much of the current protesting is coming from the touring clubs, not the ASNs. So I suspect there's some agenda going on here where the touring clubs see themselves being the victim of a man coming from a motor-racing background instead of someone from the road-car sphere that they represent. In several countries I see the touring club having voted against Mosley while the national motorsport federation was in support. So how do these two national bodies relate to each other? Should the latter always be the 'sporting division' of the former? And is the former its country's single representative at the FIA?

In fact RS2000 is asking similar questions in his previous post...

[Red Socks]

There used to be two paralell bodies-FIA and AIT ( Alliance International de Tourisme) but Max brought the two together into a single entity about five years ago. However the AIT members-ACN rather than ASN each still have a representative at the table.
It is not necessarily the case that the ACN and ASN are linked in any particular country and equally the roles of the ASN and/or ACN from country to country are not the same. Some ACN are active as rescue services, tour agents etc, and by the same token some ASN are totally independent bodies whilst some are in effect government bodies.
Generally there is no general rule.

[HDonaldCapps]

I think that if someone or a group of someones decided to tell the FIA, particularly on the motor sports side, to stuff it where the sun is unlikely to shine unless you engage in Certain Activities and then developed their own way of doing things -- a pattern that motor racing should be familiar with by now, not sure I would bet on the FIA.

[Red Socks]

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
I think that if someone or a group of someones decided to tell the FIA, particularly on the motor sports side, to stuff it where the sun is unlikely to shine unless you engage in Certain Activities and then developed their own way of doing things -- a pattern that motor racing should be familiar with by now, not sure I would bet on the FIA.

As you are the other side of the pond you will not have yet seen todays London Times-but according to the back page Bernie is quite close to doing just that.
Looking at the now almost universal NON adoption of Appendix K for Historic Motor sport, Spa 6 Hours, Old Timer GP, Laguna Seca,, Goodwood etc etc the FIA seem to be being exposed as a total paper tiger.
Like they say-What are you going to do about it !
Can't see FIA has an answer

[ensign14]

It would have a massive knock-on effect legally, perhaps. Insurance and legislation will depend on FIA approval. Not sure the same trust would be there from a similar body set up by the participants/manufacturers/whatever in quasi-opposition to the FIA.

[GeoffE]

Originally posted by Red Socks
As you are the other side of the pond you will not have yet seen todays London Times-but according to the back page Bernie is quite close to doing just that.

BBC version of that story http://news.bbc.co.u...one/7456405.stm

[Racer.Demon]

It's back to the future with Bernie's latest dig at the FIA:

http://www.grandprix...ns/ns20468.html
http://www.pitpass.c...es_art_id=35106

There are some remarkable parallels in some of Bernie's words:

"Max has nothing to do with finance. The FIA has a clear, clear, clear agreement and signed agreement with the European Commission that they are the regulators of the sport. They are not anything to do with money. If Max comes back and says we should give more money to teams, I will tell him to mind his own bloody business."

That's echoing his words of 1979 when he told JMB to do the same with his newly founded FISA - right before we got into into the bloody FISA/FOCA war...

So are we looking forward to the FIA/FOM war of 2009-'10? With former friend Max now in Balestre's position? I'm almost sure of it. If Bernie is serious about the breakaway series he can always use the World Professional Drivers Championship title.

And this is very telling as well:

"If there was no Formula 1, the FIA would be in serious trouble."

The position of the big auto clubs within the FIA is starting to make sense - and Max's claims about a deliberate campaign against his person are proving closer to the mark every day...

[ensign14]

But what happened at the end of the FISA/FOCA war? FISA was still in charge of sanctioning...

[Racer.Demon]

It all depends on whether a breakaway series without the FIA is any more viable today than it was thirty years ago, and it's still too early to judge that. But it's interesting enough that they are repeating the same steps, almost as if it's scripted.

The early 21st-century breakaway threat was interesting as well, with the manufacturers trying to go it alone, only for Max to force them into the 2008 championship with a master stroke. But I can't really see any FISA/FOCA-style factions within the teams now. Who is Max trying to save? There are virtually no small teams left since Williams torpedoed the customer chassis future, causing Aguri to fold and STR being on sale (both being unsellable in the current situation), and word is that Williams along with Ferrari are heading the opposition, so apparently Williams doesn't feel it needs to be saved. Which leaves Force India, but that also helped Aguri's demise along, meaning it's now happily into the top ten.

So it rather seems that Max isn't fighting on behalf of any actual team but instead for the empty slots that he fears won't be filled if the current teams get their way.

[Racer.Demon]

I'm also curious to know what happened for Bernie to become Max's enemy after 40 years on the same side.

In 2006, when the GPMA threat was curbed there were five teams (Ferrari, Williams, Red Bull, STR and Midland) that committed to FOM beyond 2007, after the Concorde Agreement would expire. BMW, Honda, McLaren, Renault and Toyota were still part of the GPMA and prepared to set up their own series until Ferrari switching sides weakened their position.

Now, Bernie's FOM seems to have sided with the manufacturers, joined by at least Ferrari, Williams and Red Bull - that's almost the entire grid. What has changed during those lengthy Concorde negotiations? What has brought them all together?

[HDonaldCapps]

Originally posted by Racer.Demon
I'm also curious to know what happened for Bernie to become Max's enemy after 40 years on the same side.

In 2006, when the GPMA threat was curbed there were five teams (Ferrari, Williams, Red Bull, STR and Midland) that committed to FOM beyond 2007, after the Concorde Agreement would expire. BMW, Honda, McLaren, Renault and Toyota were still part of the GPMA and prepared to set up their own series until Ferrari switching sides weakened their position.

Now, Bernie's FOM seems to have sided with the manufacturers, joined by at least Ferrari, Williams and Red Bull - that's almost the entire grid. What has changed during those lengthy Concorde negotiations? What has brought them all together?

Greed. Autonomy. Next question?

[Racer.Demon]

Sure, but that was the same in 2002-2006 and in 1979-1981. I'm curious about the tipping point.

But come to think of it, I probably already answered my question. The customer car issue exploded back into Max's face when the 'small' teams making their own cars were threatened by the manufacturers using the customer car regulation as a loophole to create manufacturer-supported B teams. So much for Max as the small teams' saviour, as it only caused Williams and Force India to switch sides. With the customer car rule dead and buried in a new Concorde Agreement that is only waiting for Max's signature, he's up against what seems to be a united front, with Bernie speaking on behalf of it.

Then put in News Corp in there somewhere - a breakaway future with a return to pay TV, or Kirch The Second Coming? - and there's the lethal mix that created the Mosley scandal.

And remember that there is no need per se for a breakaway. The issue can be resolved perfectly fine if Max makes way and is replaced by a FOM puppet... It all hinges on Max himself standing in the way of A Bright Future. *insert sarcasm smiley*

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by ensign14
It would have a massive knock-on effect legally, perhaps. Insurance and legislation will depend on FIA approval. Not sure the same trust would be there from a similar body set up by the participants/manufacturers/whatever in quasi-opposition to the FIA.

Our AASA organisation has shown that to be untrue...

Refer, if you will, to Doug Nye's thread on this subject.

The fact is that insurance companies assess risks, they don't look at who's behind the game. They look at safety standards, of course, which brings a tie-in, but the 'renegade' AASA provides insurance more than equal to that provided by the FIA-recognised CAMS in Australia.

At times the CAMS trots out an assertion that the FIA is recognised by the UN. I don't think that means anything other than that the FIA asked for such recognition.

In Australia we have the CAMS, incidentally, trying to convince the various state governments to bequeath all motor sporting control to them. So far it hasn't worked, the AASA's case has been good.