Rule Changes, Controversy, Civil War, F1 Marks Its Return To The Sport Stage

Going into the 2009 season all the Formula 1 fans were anticipating the close battle between the Scuderia Ferrari and Team Vodafone McLaren, at no point was there a consideration that a team such as Brawn or Toro Rosso might rule the championship outright by mid season. 

The elevation of both previously struggling teams was a fresh sight for the sport, bringing back memories of an era gone by, an era when Lotus challenged the established marquees such as Ferrari or Maseratti. 

While several teams begun voicing their objections to the technological modifications made to the Brawn cars, by the fourth race of the season just as many teams begun to consider relocating their resources to the development of the 2010 car.

Going into the 2009 season the fans as well as team owners were looking forward to a sport dominated season. While the Australia-gate or Lewis lie-gate did come up as an issue at the season’s start, it was considered a minor blotch that would soon be forgotten. 

Rectified by actions and inactions of team Vodafone McLaren, the matter was quickly dealt with and the sport proceeded into the future, minus Ron Dennis. 

The departure of the major figurehead from McLaren was not visible, and had a fan started following the British equippe’s season, following the shocker, he or she would hardly notice that a different individual had held the post that Martin Whitmarsh now occupied just a fortnight ago; nonetheless even the most hardcore of the Tifosi would certainly miss the strong adversary of the Scuderia. 

Any F1 fan, whether it was that hardcore Tiffosi, or a supporter of BMW, Honda, Force India, was glad to see this matter resolved quickly and the sport get back to being a sport. 

That identity seemed to have been overshadowed in the past by a multitude of lawsuits and disagreements ranging from the Stepney-gate to McLaren-gate to Button-gate. 

The one individual looking to minimize further embarrassments was no doubt, Bernie Ecclestone. His divorce made world news quite recently, and each new case involving F1 has made harder his attempt to present the motorsport as a completion with a “golden” image. 

The image would be dirtied yet again, not through the breach of rules by any team, or cheating allegations, or contractual matters. The image of F1 has been tarnished by what can be described as Civil War or mutiny. 

On one side of the wall stands the FOTA. The Formula One Teams Association (FOTA) is a group of Formula One teams that was formed at a meeting in Maranello on 29 July 2008. 

The association, directed by the president of Ferrari, Luca Cordero di Montezemolo, consists of all teams competing in the 2009 Formula one season. 

On the other side of the imaginary wall stands one individual, Max Mosley. Max, or Max Rufus Mosley, born 13 April 1940, is president of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), a non-profit association that represents the interests of motoring organizations and car users worldwide. The FIA is also the governing body for Formula One and other international motorsports.   

Bernie Ecclestone is directly involved due to his status as the primary authority of Formula One. 

Bernard Charles "Bernie" Ecclestone, born 28 October 1930, is a billionaire sports entrepreneur, as president and CEO of Formula One Management and Formula One Administration and through his part-ownership of Alpha Prema, the parent company of the Formula One Group of companies.

As of 2008 FOTA has had an impact on passing the rules on how the sport should look like in the seasons to come. While some of the decisions made have benefitted one team or another and did not help the others, the FOTA members implemented these decisions in hopes of strengthening the image, character, and essence of the sport. 

While the teams may have disagreed on issues such as “trick-diffusers” or “twin diffusers”, the FOTA has worked quite well together. The co-operation of the FOTA members not only served to make the sport beneficial to all members of the grid, but it also created a strong unity between the members. 

In the past when issues such as a breakaway series came up there were obvious visible divisions between the teams, and so this project was easily dispatched by Bernie and Max. 

With the 2009 season in full swing the team principals began working on the proposed rules for 2010.  Costs saving measures were proposed, changes to the sport, such as the medal system, were quietly written in, and the idea of a twin level championship as well as a budget cap was floated. 

Floated may be a proper word for the first part, the twin championship system was completely opposed and so this proposal seems to have been withdrawn. The budget cap on one hand has threatened the very existence of the sport. 

A budget cap is a method that companies or sporting leagues attempt to level out the playing field.  In baseball it works, as it does in hockey, football (grid-iron); in F1 this idea is quite absurd. 

F1 is money driven sport; combined spending costs on ticket, hotels, swag, team budgets, entry fees, racetrack fees, could put the budget of a small African country to shame. The sport itself spends a lot of money because there are entertainment factors, matters of advertising, running the entire circus, paying for television rights, and a million other costs. 

At no point is Bernie told that he needs to curb down spending; if he believes this needs to be changed or that changed then the follow up question is not why but instead how soon and how is it to be different. 

F1 seems to run based on the motto established by the Roman legions; if it is possible it is done, if it is impossible it will be done. 

Teams spend a lot of money, because to stay competitive you need to constantly develop technologies. To develop technology you need to pay for the raw materials needed to produce an item, the salaries of those working on the item beign produced, the equipment needed to produce the item, the delivery costs, and this is just a generic list. 

Furthermore who knows if the first item that has been researched will work as its intended to; another list is made.

In an environment where the first item costs this much and the next even more, in an environment where the practicality of a development and its success is paramount saving costs can only be taken to some extent. 

F1 developments affect the performance as well as the safety of a car, and the moment you cut costs either one will be affected. Safety tends to be a priority, thus performance would most certainly be affected.

In setting up a salary cap F1 would lose its designation as the technological marvel, or the symbol of a marriage between the ultimate technological achievement and utterly competitive sport. 

Race teams building Lemans prototypes would easily and quickly scoop up the workforce in search of the next technologically free and liberal utopia. 

The view of the budget cap being an oppressive system may be influenced by a misunderstanding of how a budget cap would affect the sport, and a budget cap would perhaps indeed improve racing by leveling the playing field and bringing in more competition. 

If the issue with the budget cap is that teams spend without accountability could teams not present their budget, which would then remain frozen for the upcoming season, to the FIA prior to the start of that season? That would become a budget cap, and other teams would be authorized to match it. Should they not be able to afford it the FIA would help with the financing? 

Yes money does not grow on trees, however over the span of the season the FIA collects fines and such. 

Investing to increase the value or even paying them out directly would help with the budget of a team; it is probably unimaginable how much of a return that 100 million fine that McLaren paid could have brought, had Bernie invested it into an ING savings account.  

This proposal would not end there. The new teams would be given a deadline to rise up the ranks. 

I am not talking of becoming the new Ferrari or BMW, or McLaren, but if Brawn could do it in such a short time, than five years is plenty, unless the team is called Toyota of course.

This “wonderful” idea is as probable to work as a 45 million dollar budget cap. Stranger things have however worked. What the budget cap issue and its outcome on F1 seems to address is a matter of contractual agreement. 

Members of the FOTA minus Williams and Force India, who were suspended due to their decision to enter the 2010 championship, have made it clear that they are pulling out of the sport and setting up their own F1 style series. 

This decision is the result of the unwavering decision by Max Moseley to impose a budget cap. Bernie Ecclestone argues that three of the teams threatening to break away from F1, Scuderia Toro Rosso, Red Bull, and Ferrari, are contractually obligated to compete next year as entrants in F1 and cannot leave the sport. 

According to Bernie and Max they have signed agreements guaranteeing participation in the sport in 2010 and beyond. The key question here is whether the contract is still in place or is null void because of the changes in the rules.

As complicated as contracts pay seems in the end the very nature of any contract is simple. If a person playing for a hockey team signs a contract, the contract remains valid unless a change is made. 

The change in a contract can be considered a breach. Breach of contract is a legal concept in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance. 

A fundamental breach (or repudiatory breach) is a breach so fundamental that it permits the aggrieved party to terminate performance of the contract, in addition to entitling that party to sue for damages.

In other words if Ferrari, STR, and Red Bull all signed a contract based on rules of agreed upon at the time of the signing and the rules were then changed than that contract is not valid. 

In lawyer speak, a violation of the terms of a legal agreement; Default. Breach of contract allows the non-breaching party to rescind the contract, sue for damages, or sue for performance of the contract. 

It is quite simple really. If a tenant agrees to lease at a specific address at a rate of one thousand per month, and then a year later the rent is now two thousand per month, then the agreement signed does not match the current circumstance and so as a result the contract is null void.  

If however the contract calls for freedom by the landlord to modify the rules of the lease at any time without affecting the validity of the lease then the tenant has never had any legal experience, has been scammed, and must follow established rules for breaking the lease. 

Ferrari, Scuderia Toro Rosso, and Red Bull most certainly have employed an army of lawyer to scrupulously review the contract to benefit their future, and find loopholes that can in the future be maximized to their benefit.

The key question thus arises; what are the details of the contracts signed by the three teams? Do they allow the FIA free reign as long as their hides are protected?  While Ferrari, as a result of beign the first to sign, was given greater income than other teams, it is naive to assume that the Scuderia would agree to such an option. 

Moreover STR and Red Bull, not being given special privileges undoubtedly agreed to the contract of future co-operation based on rules established at that time, not on those changed a million times since. 

It would be almost helpful to the situation if the actual contracts signed were presented not in the words of each party, but rather in its original form so that the public would be aware of what indeed was signed. Until that contract remains in its “safe” the public can rely on he said type information. 

At this time a solution is needed and quickly so that the sport can continue being a sport and fans view of F1 is not tarnished further.

The simple solution to the problem would perhaps be to allow the teams to start their own series and let the season run its course. This solution will never work, because there is too much money at stake and too many egos as well. 

At the beginning of the season we saw Ron Dennis abandon his already limited number of duties at McLaren, and leave his post at F1. Mr. Dennis walks away with much pride, respect, and a head held up high knowing that he leaves his team which will continue to achieve further greatness after his departure and perhaps because of it as well. 

Ron’s departure came at a time when McLaren were facing yet another situation where their credibility was being questioned and the team faced a threat of an impending fine or exclusion.

Any negotiator will tell you that a gesture of goodwill is key in high pressure situations.  Ron Dennis’ departure not only served to guarantee a new era of cooperation between team McLaren, but also as a gesture of goodwill; one can almost imagine the FIA saying, “if Mr. Dennis does leave we will abandon any further inquiries, and he does leave on good terms rather than shamed yet again.”

When the current row between the FIA and the FOTA is examined the best outcome is that Max preserves his pride, his name, and bid an early goodbye.

Max Mosley has done great things for the sport over the decades; it would be a shame to remember Mr. Mosley as the destroyer of a racing tradition 60 years old, instead of the co-architect of the most successful business and motorsport co-venture.

Spock once said that “logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”  Perhaps it is time for Max to re-examine the timeless classic, “the Wrath of Khan.”