Why a 2001 decision is at the root of current FIA v FOM tensions

It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that relations between the FIA and Formula 1’s commercial rights holder are not great at the moment.

The style of leadership that we have seen from FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem has helped put the governing body on a collision course several times with FOM since he took over at the end of 2021. There was the Abu Dhabi 2021 fallout, controversy over his remarks about a potential Saudi Arabian takeover of F1, angst over his plans to expand the F1 grid with Andretti, and questions asked about many aspects of the way grand prix racing has been run (think track limits, jewellery ban, driver code of conduct and behaviour).

Frustrations and annoyance perhaps reached a peak last week over the FIA’s mishandling, and ultimate U-turn, regarding allegations that proved to be totally unfounded against Mercedes boss Toto Wolff and wife Susie who is the managing director of F1 Academy.

PLUS: How the FIA/Wolff case could shape F1’s political landscape

The tensions are all a far cry from the days of most recent FIA presidents Max Mosley and Jean Todt where, despite the occasional flash points, the organisations were pretty much aligned on a lot of aspects regarding the way F1 needed to develop. And those alliances were crucial at times, perhaps no more so than amid the middle of the COVID crisis, when the FIA and FOM had to pull out all the stops and work together to push through plans that ensured the survival of all of F1’s current 10 teams. A split at that point of time could have triggered a collapse.

The current state of relations between the FIA and FOM has inevitably prompted some intrigue about what is fuelling the divisions between the two organisations. Front and centre of it has been Ben Sulayem himself, who has not been afraid to come forward and declare his views many times about situations he thinks are unfair. The approach is the opposite of F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali, who much prefers to sort things out quietly behind closed doors and avoid too much fanfare in anything that happens.

While there have been suspicions of personal agendas and egos at play in terms of Ben Sulayem locking horns with FOM at many points, the situation is actually being fuelled by something much bigger – and can be traced back more than two decades.

Photo by: Motorsport Images

Could a deal between the Mosley and Ecclestone from 22 years ago be the cause of the current troubles?

Last week at the FIA Prize Gala in Baku, the president of the FIA Senate, Carmelo Sanz de Barros, offered some fascinating insight into how he viewed the situation – as he suggested it has all snowballed from a decision made in 2001 by the FIA.

In particular, this was the FIA’s move under Mosley to sell F1’s commercial rights for $313.7m to then owner SLEC – Ecclestone’s-established family trust – for 100 years (extending an existing 15-year lease). It’s a deal that runs until 2110. While the original 100-year deal focused on the commercial exploitation of F1, it has morphed into something that is far bigger than just giving FOM the freedom to sell TV rights and other big earning opportunities.

Along the way, the FIA has also given up control of various aspects – including timing, the control of certain passes, and sponsorship opportunities from things under its total control like the safety car – that it now believes should be under its remit.

"The way we see it in the presidential team, it is clear that the owner of F1 is the FIA. We are responsible. We are the owner of this championship, like we are with rallies, with FE, or karting" Carmelo Sanz de Barros, president of the FIA Senate

And that is before any thought is given to who pays for the increasingly complicated regulatory role that it must fulfil in F1. As the ongoing controversy over track limits has shown – with the need for advanced technology and now even AI-elements – ensuring rules are policed properly does not come cheap.

For de Barros, the current situation between the FIA and FOM all ultimately boils back to this 100-year deal – and a feeling that the governing body’s previous administration took its eye off the ball in letting too much go.

“What I think has happened is that probably in the last few years, before our time, maybe the FIA was not paying too much attention to its own responsibilities in the F1 competition,” he said. “Then, when you are trying to get back to responsibilities and trying to apply your regulation, it may generate some conflict.

“The way we see it in the presidential team, it is clear that the owner of F1 is the FIA. We are responsible. We are the owner of this championship, like we are with rallies, with FE, or karting. But in the case of F1, there was an agreement where for 100 years we delegate the pure commercial responsibility to a third party. In that case, and at the moment, this is FOM.

Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images

The FIA has taken an aggressive stance with F1 since Ben Sulayem began as president

“Probably it is not only the reason why we have been having some of these conflicts, and I'm not blaming only FOM, because I think that we've been not doing our job in many areas, and we've not been paying too much attention to some aspects of our responsibilities. So, what is happening now is that we are trying to go back to whatever is the normal approach and the normal process.”

De Barros likens the situation to someone lending a friend a piece of clothing, and then asking for it back many years later: “If I've being using your shirt for four or five years, and now suddenly I come to you and you say, ‘give me back my shirt’, probably you will try to resist a little bit.”

The suggestions over this being about the FIA taking back what it thinks it should have as the owner of F1, fits in with many remarks that Ben Sulayem has made in recent months. Speaking about track limits earlier this year, he suggested it unfair that the FIA was expected to police things on a ‘shoestring’ considering the billions that F1 was generating.

“Our agreement has to be better,” he said. “You have to remember one thing: we own the championship. I represent the landlord, and we lease it. Our mission is different to Liberty but we are in the same boat.”

He added: “We should not be running this big responsibility with a shoestring. We are transparent. [We tell people] this is what it costs. People are bragging about how much each F1 team is worth, but the FIA should be free and have the resources to run it in the best way. Every time we are better, we make the teams better and we make the sport better.”

But while there are obvious tensions, which will inevitably mark out the battlelines in discussions over the next Concorde Agreement from 2026, de Barros does not sense the differences between the FIA and FOM as being irreconcilable. He thinks relations are improving at certain levels, even if there have been some difficulties along the way.

“There have been moments where some conflicts happen, or some misunderstandings, and the style [has been questioned], but I think that this is improving,” he said. “We have had, in these two years, all these tensions, but I think that it is much better in the sense that now we start understanding what this commercial ownership means, and this is what we are talking about. 

Photo by: Steven Tee / Motorsport Images

In the main, F1 teams and drivers have been caught in the middle of the power struggle between the FIA and FOM

“I'm convinced that we are getting there, and I hope that we are at the end of this process because, whether we like it or not, we are in bed together. We are a couple, we have to go to bed every night, so what we have to try from both sides, is to make sure that we sleep as good as possible.”

The lingering frustrations inside the FIA over the 100-year sale are clear, but what is done is done. It knows it will have to wait another 87 years to address things properly on regarding the wider deal.

But there are elements it thinks it should get back now. And to achieve it, Ben Sulayem has been on the attack and confrontational  – which has perhaps not been the best way of trying to achieve the aims.

What will be fascinating to see though is whether that aggressive stance remains or, in light of recent events, the FIA realises that being more conciliatory is a better route to success. As de Barros said: “It [the decision] was done years ago, and we can do little on that. We can ensure though that, within the contract and with the new rules of the competition, we need to adapt. I think this is important.”

Photo by: Steven Tee / Motorsport Images

Can the FIA and FOM repair its relationship?