Is Bernie Ecclestone a hero or a villain?

Liberty Media's first move as it confirmed its takeover of Formula 1's commercial rights was seismic: Bernie Ecclestone was ousted from his role as chief executive of Formula 1 as part of a major restructure by new owner Liberty Media, and replaced by Chase Carey.

The reshuffle, which includes Ross Brawn returning to F1 in a senior role with Liberty, brings an end to a 40-year reign for Ecclestone, who has been handed an honorary role as chairman emeritus.

For better or worse, the 86-year-old has left a huge mark on F1. Here, Autosport assesses just how the outgoing grand prix tsar will be remembered.

MORE THAN A MONEY MAN
Gary Anderson

Bernie Ecclestone was my first boss in motorsport as the team owner at Brabham, and he was my last boss working in Formula 1 when I was with FOM in 2014. I've lived through the changes he has made to it.

I always remember something Ken Tyrrell said at a meeting we had in the early 1990s, when everyone was complaining about how much money Bernie was handing out and how much he was pocketing. He pointed out that Bernie gave him 10 times what he could ever have got for himself, and for no aggravation. It's absolutely true.

Before Bernie, F1 was nothing more than just a load of independent teams not working together. What he did is turn it into something that could then be sold to people with the teams and drivers everybody knows. Without him, it would never have become a circus and would never have been sold to circuits, television stations and fans worldwide.

But, of course, all the team bosses who were there before are gone now, so today's don't realise the way Bernie put that whole jigsaw together.

You can argue Bernie has become less effective in the past 10 years or so, but it's no coincidence that's at the time when he's lost control. You need a dictator to make the decisions and F1 has made some disastrous decisions when the teams have tried to run it by committee. Bernie decides the direction and does what needs to be done to deliver it; whether that costs money or makes money is by the by.

Knowing him personally, it's wrong to see him just as a money man. Yes, he's driven by success, whether that was success through winning with Brabham or making money, and he will weigh up whether a day is a good or bad one that way.

He's a hard man to work for, but he's honest and doesn't go back on what he says. He'd always have time for you and you could knock on his door and have a chat any time as long as you were honest. He'd rather hear the worst truth than the best lie, and that's never changed. That's what has allowed him to give F1 direction.

It's going to be difficult to fill those shoes - after all, who's going to get on the phone to Vladimir Putin if there's something to sort out with the Russian Grand Prix? Chase Carey? I don't think so.

That's when people will realise just how big Bernie's impact has been.

A FIGHTER - WHO MAY YET FIGHT BACK
Dieter Rencken (@RacingLines)

An oft-heard phrase in the paddock was 'Bernie says...', with the implication being that, whatever the topic, it must be so. Too often overlooked in such debates was that the man referred to by his first name had cut his teeth in the rough and tumble of used motorcycle wheeler-dealing and Warren Street's pre-owned car market, and such traders are seldom listed among the world's most pious individuals.

So in analysing Ecclestone's legacy, the first questions that need asking are: did he voluntarily relinquish day-to-day control of F1? If not, will he fight back, and does he have the ammunition to do so? After all, at Monza he said he would be "gone by Singapore [if Liberty acquired control of F1]"; four days later, after the media group did just that, he told folk he had a three-year deal to remain as CEO.

True, this week he himself broke the news that he had been stood down, later confirmed by a Liberty Media release, but if Bernie has an outstanding characteristic it is that of a fighter. He, after all, took on virtually every team boss and won; took on a trio of banks, and (mostly) won; persuaded the FIA to sell him the 113-year rights to F1, and amassed billions in the process.

Whenever he was asked when he intended retiring, the answers varied from "I don't intend going anywhere" through "I intend staying in charge for another 40 years" to "They will have to carry me out [of F1] in a box" - implicit in his answers was that Bernie, and he alone, would dictate his departure, or be forced to do so by natural causes. Given the alleged "three-year deal", it would appear that he was forced out on terms other than his own.

Various paddock stories attest to his acumen and cunning, and those who truly believe that his future role will be restricted to providing answers only when asked clearly underestimate the man. Has Liberty really managed to get inside his head since September? If not, the ensuing showdown will make the FOCA/FISA war that almost rent F1 apart appear like a slow game of paintball.

Already the word from inside Formula One Management is that the fight is far from over, and given that over the years Ecclestone has generated enormous loyalty among key F1 personnel and knows the business inside out (and outside in, to boot), he has a head start over his (possible) adversaries should push come to shove-back. And, this time, he has nothing to lose.

AN ANTI-HERO
Edd Straw (@EddStrawF1)

Viewed from one perspective, as the man who gave grand prix racing form, structure, a firm place in the world and a reach beyond its wildest dreams, Ecclestone is a hero.

From the other perspective, as the man who was instrumental in the selling of the championship's commercial rights and created the current environment where short-term profit is prioritised to the detriment of long-term returns and stability, he is a villain.

Grand prix racing was shambolic when Ecclestone began to tighten his grip in the 1970s. Nobody else had the interest or capability to be anything resembling a central promoter, and the various participants were only too happy to let him do the leg work in exchange for their piece of the pie and a sense of order.

Without Ecclestone, Formula 1 in its modern sense might never have existed. Many argue this has been to the detriment of motorsport as a whole, and it would be naive to ignore the times he has thrown a spanner in the works of the growth of other categories.

But at the same time, Ecclestone bringing F1 into the modern world years before many rival sports even realised that was necessary gave motorsport a standard bearer. Without F1 proselytising, millions of people might never even have been exposed to motor racing.

So how will Ecclestone be remembered? As the architect of modern F1, a hero. As someone who milked the cash cow to excess in later years and potentially threatened its long-term existence, a villain. As the man who facilitated the safety drive by appointing Professor Sid Watkins in 1978, a hero. As the person who sold F1's commercial rights, a villain.

The list is endless, but soon enough you'd find yourself coming up with more reasons he's a hero than a villain, despite his tendency to make public pronouncements that he really shouldn't.

Like all of us, Ecclestone is located somewhere on the spectrum between the two extremes. But he's closer to hero than true villain.

Maybe his one big mistake was staying around too long. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that in the days where sustainability, social media and social conscience have become a big deal, too much of his good work was undone.

But he should be judged for his overall contribution, which was largely positive. The uncomfortable reality for those that despise him is that had the past 40 years been Bernie-less, it would have been more wasteland than the Garden of Eden.

SOMEONE WHO HELD ON TOO LONG
Glenn Freeman (@glenn_autosport)

Bernie Ecclestone had dragged Formula 1 kicking and screaming into the mainstream by the 1980s, but his failure to adapt the business model that made so many people in the paddock so rich meant that by the end, F1 was kicking and screaming to break free of his grasp.

Television changed beyond recognition during Ecclestone's time at the helm, but how much did his approach change? Squeezing every possible buck out of TV companies was a masterplan when the market was hot, and in the years of just a few channels, F1 commanded a larger proportion of the airtime than it probably deserved.

But as the handful of channels at viewers' disposal became hundreds, F1 regressed - probably back to where it belonged - in the TV pecking order. That required looking further afield to keep the big-money deals rolling in, and gradually burying grands prix further in the TV guides.

The short-term focus of maximising a deal today at the expense of something that could have wider benefits in the future was a problem that snowballed, but at his age what was in it for Ecclestone to change his ways?

Giving everything away for free on the internet isn't the answer, no matter how many times it is naively suggested that it would fix all of F1's ills. But other sports have moved ahead in the TV market: the Premier League took Ecclestone's worldwide rights model and dwarfed F1 (it helps that football is a more popular, accessible sport in a lot of countries), while US sports in particular embraced paid-for online models that are starting to gain traction.

The latter was a huge risk, but it's already paying off and is protecting forward-thinking sports entities from the inevitable dwindling conventional TV revenues. F1 has a lot of catching up to do in this area, and moving Ecclestone aside is the right way to accelerate that process.

NOT A SPORTSCAR SABOTEUR
Gary Watkins (@gazzasportscars)

There probably aren't too many tears being shed by sportscar fans of a certain age over the news that Bernie Ecclestone finds himself out of work today. The man behind the exponential growth of F1 is deemed culpable by many in the death of the world sportscar championship in the early 1990s.

Ecclestone and long-time ally Max Mosley, by then incumbent as FIA president, were certainly at the helm when the series went into what turned out to be a 24-year hibernation at the end of 1992. But the conspiracy theory that they set out to destroy it unravels at every turn.

For a start, Mosley had yet to become president of the FIA when Ecclestone got involved in what was then known as the World Sports-Prototype Championship in 1989. Jean-Marie Balestre still had the big office in the Place de la Concorde, and it was the Frenchman who was the biggest proponent of the 3.5-litre Group C formula that proved to be the undoing of the series.

The idea that Ecclestone got involved in sportscar racing in an effort to create a supply of manufacturers building 3.5-litre powerplants to feed F1 is simplistic. As always with Bernie, money was the motivating factor.

Ecclestone had become FIA vice-president of promotional affairs in 1987 and in that role tried to claim the television rights for all international motorsport for the governing body. TV deals are his thing, especially when there are manufacturers with money around, and there were six competing in the WSPC in '89.

The FIA became ever more aggressive over TV rights in the mid-1990s, which put it at loggerheads with the BPR Organisation that ran the Global Endurance GT Series. There was also a desire to provide Mercedes - as well as several key sponsors - with a platform on the death of the International Touring Car series at the end of 1996.

The FIA GT Championship came into being in 1997 as a result. The idea that it was started to prevent GT racing from prospering is again wrong.

Speak to Stephane Ratel, who threw his lot in with Bernie to jointly promote the new series, and he'll insist that he had a willing and able partner always on the lookout for a good deal. The Stateside jaunts made by FIA GTs in 1997-99, which included races at Laguna Seca and Sebring, were of Bernie's making.

It would be wrong to suggest that Ecclestone had a positive impact on his two forays into the world of endurance racing. But on the other hand he shouldn't be regarded as some kind of sportscar saboteur.

Rather than celebrating the news that Bernie has been given the heave-ho by F1's new owners, sportscar racing should regard it as an opportunity. Maybe the World Endurance Championship could do with some of the Ecclestone magic now he's got time on his hands.

A TAINTED LEGACY
Kevin Turner (@KRT917)

There is no doubt that Ecclestone is one of the key figures in motorsport history and, until the early 1990s, his early impact would have to be considered positive.

He professionalised Formula 1 and brought it to a much wider audience through his TV deals. Along with other key figures, such as Sid Watkins, he also helped to make F1 safer.

But his legacy will surely be tainted by some of his later deals. There was a strong feeling in the sportscar world that he was one of the key architects of the demise of Group C at the end of 1992, allegedly to get more manufacturers into F1.

As time went on, the desire to increase profits overtook the needs of the sport. The deal he and then FIA president Max Mosley put together - the sale/purchase of F1's commercial rights for 100 years - has caused many problems and will probably continue to do so.

His reluctance to explore - or allow F1 to explore - modern media and fan engagement outside TV has also stifled the very series he helped to grow.

And then there are the circuits. Quite apart from his deals that allowed politically dubious (but rich) regimes to host grands prix, Ecclestone has been ruthless with the traditional venues and, by extension, F1's fan base.

The multi-million-pound fees circuits have to pay to host races would be bad enough, but the conditions attached make it almost impossible for tracks to stay in business without the support of government funding or super-wealthy private backers.

The sale of tickets is the only area in which circuits can make money. When Silverstone still has to prop up the well-attended British GP with other activities, you know there is something wrong with the business model, particularly when the 5% escalator - well above inflation - is applied year after year after year.

That approach has meant that the French, German, Italian, British and Belgian GPs have all been threatened, or fallen off the F1 calendar, during this century. Ecclestone has been known to step in and help on occasion - as though the enthusiasm that brought him to the sport is still there somewhere - but that hasn't stopped the overall trend.

That's why fan reaction to Bernie's departure will likely be one of 'about time' and 'good riddance', rather than a more positive one that might have prevailed had he left earlier.

A BUNDLE OF CONTRADICTIONS
Jonathan Noble (@NobleF1)

Just as history shows many great leaders stay in power too long, so their exit becomes not of their choosing, so too it is all too easy to remember them for the failures that led to their ousting.

In Bernie Ecclestone's case, the reflections on what prompted Liberty Media to push him aside are focused on F1's lack of growth, his reluctance to embrace new media and his dictatorial management style that meant big change was impossible to achieve.

Yet to judge Ecclestone as a failure because he fell behind the curve in recent years would do a great disservice to the man who helped take the sport from a niche weekend activity to an $8billion global empire.

If he hadn't been an autocrat, standing up against those who were reluctant to share his vision of what F1 could become, grand prix racing may well never have become big enough to ever feature in Liberty Media's spotlight in the first place.

But when it comes to remembering Ecclestone's involvement in F1, it will be his personality that stands out - and the way in which he was a bundle of contradictions.

One minute he could be playing the joker with the media, pretending to not understand questions while he brilliantly thought up an even funnier response. The next moment he would be tearing it up against the F1 team principals for not agreeing with his way of doing things.

He was a man set in his ways - never understanding the gains to be had from social media, for example - and yet at the same time he was a total visionary who embraced digital television in the early 2000s (to his huge cost) at a time when he was years ahead of what fans thought they wanted.

In the end, despite all of Ecclestone's foibles, F1 did remain at the pinnacle of motor racing. It still is the only sport to rival the Olympics and the football World Cup in terms of impact - and that it has the platform to become bigger and better in the future is down to the strong foundations he has left in place.

Gone from power he may be, but he will not be forgotten.