FIA presidency battle hots up

FIA, FIFA, FINA, FIS - there hardly exists an alphabetic letter (or two) not appended to the abbreviation for Federation International to denote an international sporting body of some genre or other.

True, the International Olympic Committee does without 'F', but then the IOC caters for various physical sports on a quadrennial basis, rather than being an individual sporting discipline.

However, what sets the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile - and its two-wheel FIM counterpart - apart from the balance of acronymic organisations is that the FIA (est. 1904) is not purely a sporting authority, but represents the full spectrum of four-wheel activities across the globe.

It is best equated to being an athletics federation catering not only for sprinters and runners, but hikers, mountaineers, casual strollers and dog walkers.

While motorsport is without doubt the FIA's most visible portfolio, it makes up but a percentage of the body's activities, which include global promotion and co-ordination of 250 motoring organisations (think RAC) and member rights, with emphasis on safety, mobility, environment and law in 135 countries with utterly diverse procedures and operating conditions.

Factor in the activities of the related FIA Institute and Foundation entities, and the FIA's responsibilities are fundamental to the overall functioning of our mobile world.

The FIA administers its own world championships (F1, WRC, WEC, WTCC) and sanctioned regional series, and facilitates global development of the sport and cross-border competition. Thus, should a Mongolian wish to race monopostos in Monaco, FIA licencing procedures ensure international safety standards are followed.

David Ward will stand for FIA presidency

Its halo championship is, of course, the Formula 1 World Championship, which makes up just five per cent of the FIA's total responsibilities despite being statistically the world's largest continuous sporting block.

Compare this with FIFA, which is consumed by World Cup and UEFA competitions, or FINA, which concentrates on but five aquatic disciplines.

Yet F1, being what it is, demands that the FIA president, currently the former rally co-driver Jean Todt - he of rally and sportscar fame (Peugeot) and Ferrari's noughties F1 hegemony - devote its full resources to the sport, attending each grand prix and personally dotting every 'i' in the regulations and crossing every 't' while controlling the individual budgets of teams as diverse as McLaren and Marussia.

Given the FIA's remit this is clearly an impossible ask, as proven by the ineffective acrimony into which the sport sank under his predecessor Max Mosley, who attempted just that through micro-management before stepping aside in October 2009.

Not only did the likes of the World Rally Championship and international sportscar racing suffer in the process - before being revitalised under Todt - but he stood accused of neglecting Touring and Mobility, so much so that the American Automobile Association (est. 1902, 52m members) early in 2010 withdrew from FIA affiliation despite being a founding member, citing the need for an organisation that "provides meaningful services and benefits to its members".

Todt adopted a different tack, concentrating on touring and safety matters across the globe, believing these had been neglected in the past.

He considers F1 to be big and strong enough to look after itself - and, given the global entities on the grid, it surely is an indictment of their management that they need hands clasped at every turn. Surely grown men (and woman) should be able to sort themselves out...

That said, it is a question of balance: where Mosley over-concentrated on F1, as could be expected from one who was not only a team owner but played a crucial role in the formation of the Formula One Constructors Association with friend Bernie Ecclestone before crossing to the 'other' side, Todt's critics (predominantly those in the F1 paddock) maintain he swung too far the other way - no doubt a legacy of his corporate days.

With FIA presidential elections looming - the General Membership, ie representatives from all affiliated clubs, go to the polls in Paris on December 9 to determine the next president - this patent disparity between Sport and Mobility is sure to feature top of individual manifestos.

David Ward, until last week the FIA Foundation's director-general and staunch Mosleyite, has announced his candidacy, while Todt is expected to confirm his availability for another four-year term within weeks.

Jean Todt's reign has attracted some criticism from within his former home in the F1 paddock © XPB

A third candidate - a senior motor industry figure, as long speculated within these pages - may yet elect to throw his hat into the ring. Is it purely coincidental that Carlos Tavares (55) resigned from his position as Renault COO within days of Ward confirming his candidature?

Electioneering has already started, and here the dichotomy in the FIA's functions is patently obvious. Mosley, while not in the running, has got himself involved in Ward's camp, and his opening salvo runs true to past form by concentrating on F1 despite the broader issues at stake and being a member (by right as immediate past president of the FIA) of the FIA Senate.

He recently made some decidedly anti-Todt comments during an interview in Die Welt, Germany's preeminent broadsheet, accusing his successor, whose 2009 election campaign he had wholeheartedly endorsed, of being 'no friend' of cost controls in the sport, thus indirectly implicating the Frenchman in the financial crisis which has swept - and continues to plague - Formula 1.

Mosley went one step further, defending the sport's current (wholly) inequitable revenue distribution structure, devised and imposed from this year by Ecclestone in his capacity of CEO of Formula One Management on behalf of the ultimate commercial rights holder, investment company CVC Capital Partners.

The ex-president argued that F1's teams were individually responsible for their plights; that any additional money received by them from the CRH would simply be spent by them on performance - as is their wont - and therefore an upper budget cap should be imposed.

Taken to an (il)logical extreme, why not force the teams to survive on sponsorship only while a family trust and bunch of faceless investors - all of whom received the FIA's blessing prior to formalising said acquisition - syphon away all underlying revenues?

Based on Mosley's argument, this begs the question: why does Ecclestone even bother paying Red Bull Racing a hundred million bucks before the team has even turned a wheel and Marussia a fat blob regardless of results?

Why not simply pay both the absolute square root of zero, and be done with it?

Thus one wonders how much of a favour he ultimately did his protege Ward by agreeing to the Die Welt interview. Equally, the interview enjoyed limited traction, for Germany has but three FIA member clubs, with the German-reading territories of Austria and Switzerland adding another seven - although, as we know, last-named bans all forms of circuit racing. Ten out of a total of 230 votes, made up by 94 Mobility, 84 Sport and 52 combined Sport/Mobility members - assuming all are paid up by December.

Max Mosley in his presidential heyday © LAT

And that is the salient point: regardless of how much candidates or their election squads pontificate about this subject or that, argue that topic or this regardless of the raft of burning issues affecting F1 team owners, drivers, fans, caravan owners, family car drivers and/or any other of its broad member demographic, the bottom line is that they have no direct vote at all come December 9.

The presidents of member clubs have the vote, and that (for now) is that. Yes, talk of F1 grabs headlines and spills ink, but that's all.

With precisely that mind, Todt went touring Africa just as Mosley was speaking to (arguably) his favoured German journalist. True, motorsport activities were on Todt's agenda - he awarded various (relatively minor) marshalling and administration prizes to ASNs (as FIA member clubs are referred to) - but the major thrust was glad-handing club presidents and seeking support.

Thus, where the aristocratic Mosley stayed true to his approach of putting F1 on a pedestal despite having left the FIA's highest office almost four years ago after four (mainly acrimonious) four-year terms (and changing the constitution to prevent any successor standing for more than two consecutive terms), the more earthy Todt went in search of commoners.

Both strategies are totally in keeping with their respective modus operandi.

It will be fascinating to observe how Ward goes about his campaign: will he lean towards Mosley, will he prove to be his own man despite the mentoring role the former barrister played in his FIA career, or will he fall between the two as can be expected from a consummate politician of many years' standing?

Complicating his task is the small matter of the Mosley-introduced 'slate': the requirement that each candidate nominate his running mates, be they Sport, Mobility or Senate officials. Todt, as incumbent, obviously has ready access to such a list - mainly inherited from the Mosley era - while Ward is likely to cultivate followers from within and without the existing structure.

Can Todt finalise the new Concorde before his term ends? © XPB

Then there is the question of Todt's achievements versus Ward's promises. But, whatever way it is eventually sliced, Todt's time in office is not yet over, and he is gambling on completing the Concorde Agreement in time.

The previous covenant, which governed F1 by outlining the mutual obligations of governing body, CRH and the teams, expired at the end of 2012, and its '13-20 successor is long overdue.

Should Todt manage to coerce all - and the term includes his own World Motor Sport Council - to sign off this crucial document, he would have achieved a veritable coup, for it is said the FIA benefits to the tune of over $100m (£70m) over the next seven years.

Given that Mosley's FIA received just $320m from Ecclestone for the 113-year (yes) commercial rights, that is one strong vote ticket.

But the foregoing makes abundantly clear that the FIA's current structure needs a massive overhaul, something Ward has promised and Todt will no doubt embrace should he elect to stand, which is by no means certain after he initially indicated he would serve one term only.

Any further candidate(s), too, could not afford to ignore the sweeping changes required to what is a creaking structure, one hardly fit for the 21st century. Thus the winner on December 9 faces an arduous task.

The overall winner is, though, likely to be the FIA, which was last restructured comprehensively in 1993, when Mosley widened his power base by wholly incorporating FISA, the FIA's then-sporting arm, into the parent body, creating the unsustainable imbalance between F1, motorsport in general and mobility.