FIA to demand more revenue for teams

In the latest development in ongoing negotiations to set out a new financial framework for the sport, the FIA is now believed to be ready to agree an accord, but only on the condition that a larger percentage of F1's total earnings are re-distributed to the teams.

The governing body is expected to use next Wednesday's FIA World Council meeting in Paris, as an opportunity to take forward proposals outlined by Max Mosley in a letter to all the FIA Presidents on May 16th.

Sources in the Magny-Cours Paddock suggest that the FIA may call for the teams to receive 92% of all promotional revenue, and 67 percent of all television revenue from each event with Ecclestone, the sport's commercial rights holder.

The teams currently receive 75 percent of the promotional revenue, and 50 percent of TV earnings. They each receive a different take of this, based on success and historical escalators, though Ferrari have a separate agreement.

A spokesman for the FIA made it clear that the governing body is seeking an "equitable distribution of revenues" and to ensure that any agreement "maintains the FIA's independent authority" to regulate F1. It is understood that the FIA sent Ecclestone their proposal for a Concorde Agreement in May 2007 but have received nothing back since.

Apart from reducing the revenue received by F1's commercial partners, the move could be seen as a political play to win over team support for Mosley.

But some team principals have privately suggested that the negotiations over a new Concorde Agreement will not be lead by money alone.

BMW team principal Mario Theissen told autosport.com: "First time I've heard about this. But we wouldn't reject the money.

"If you look at the agreement, you have to look at all the points," he added. "Not just at the money. To us it is important to have a good, strong basis for, let's say, the next ten years. In all respects. Money is part of it.

Asked if future regulations were a key factor he replied: "Sure. And not just the regulations themselves but also the procedure for how to develop the regulations.

"The basis split of responsibilities into the commercial side and the regulatory side, in my view, is not bad. I think we have seen too often in the past 10 years that the regulations were changed in a way that the teams could hardly cope with.

"And sometimes the changes were not well thought through either, and had to be reverted back. So this is something that we would like to be involved in a better way in the future; not just to be heard but also to really be in a position to influence what comes because we have to cope with it, we have to spend the money for it and we need to have the time to do it.

"All this has not always been respected. But basically, the split is OK for me."