In an exclusive interview with L'Equipe, Max Mosley, the president of the FIA, speaks of the future of F1 as he is preparing it.
For the first time in twenty-five years, the FIA is free to define the future framework of Formula One, for 2008, on the expiry of the Concorde agreement. In the interests of ensuring the continuity of the discipline, Max Mosley has made it a priority to impose cost-saving measures, whether that pleases certain major manufacturers or not.
Evidently, the direction you have defined for the future of F1 has been clear and constant for some years, but the road to achieving your goal appears frightfully tortuous. How did such complexity in the management of Formula One come about?
Max Mosley: I agree: in theory, one should be able to take decisions in one week. F1, in fact, consists of very few people, it's not like a great national democracy, and there should be greater flexibility. It's only a few people, but even so it's many more than when we defined the Concorde agreement twenty-five years ago. At the time, the discipline was limited to a small group of people who had much less money, and far fewer lawyers, than nowadays. When I began in 1970 (with March), we had a hundred times less money: our budget amounted to £113,000 including the drivers' pay, which must correspond today, taking inflation into account, to £1,500,000. We finished third in the World Championship, and even won a race. In 2005, a decent budget is £150,000,000. I know teams who spend far more and who have finished this year in worse than third place…
Of course, but the complexity of the system isn't just down to money…
MM: I was getting there. The other difficulty is the Concorde agreement, which imposes several levels of discussion and decision. It was simple when there were only a few of us; it has now become extremely complex. For example, a change to the technical regulations requires the agreement of eight teams out of ten, via their technical managers. Then it needs the agreement of the Formula One Commission, i.e. at least 18 votes out of 26, and again after that the agreement of the FIA World Council. That involves interminable discussions, and as many inevitable compromises. I understand that the public ends up confused, and it's very regrettable for F1. I will admit that the meetings with the team bosses are far less efficient than those that Charlie Whiting (FIA technical delegate) may have with the technical managers! When we have to discuss the sporting regulations with the bosses, it's a little surreal sometimes… Because they now have teams of 800, or even 1000 people, to manage, many problems everywhere, and no time to go into the details of a set of sporting regulations. Therefore, they often suggest an idea without having analysed all the consequences in depth!
And that's how we end up with the aberration of the qualifying system for 2006…
MM: For example! (Smiles) In my opinion, it is absolutely vital that we don't change that sort of thing all the time. Or else we do change it, but we first ask the experts to examine all the consequences of the envisaged change.
The 2006 qualifying system is going to be complicated…
MM: Very complicated. But the times will be displayed and the people will at least know who is the fastest driver. Also, there will probably be a pit stop with a tyre change, and the spectators love that. But I sincerely believe that the public will be like me faced with an American football game: I can watch, it's a show, but I have no idea what's going on!
Isn't it tiresome, all the same?
MM: It's very worrying. Single-lap qualifying, it's true, was not exciting for the fans in the grandstands, and the organisers lost sales… But on television (enthusiastically), it was really good! You knew exactly what was happening, even with the worst TV director in the world!
How, as president of the FIA and a racing man, can you not impose, amongst other things, a qualifying method which seems to you to be better than another?
MM: All that is really a problem for me. The ideal system would be for the Federation to consult everyone and then take a decision, for which it would be entirely responsible. Unfortunately, that is not the system that we have now, and in my opinion that harms F1. The truth is that we are paralysed by the kind of decision making we have in F1.
In that case, why are you talking of extending the Concorde agreement beyond 2007, with five teams having already signed up (Ferrari, Williams, Red Bull, Toro Rosso and Midland)?
MM: There is a will to reform, I am sure of it. At the moment, we are having discussions with the teams, in particular on how to simplify the decision-making process in the future. They recommend a majority of 70%. As for me, I would be in favour of a simple majority: 51% is enough! In fact, what these five teams have signed is an agreement in principle, an undertaking to take part in our World Championship in 2008. But all of them agree that at a certain point it will be necessary to define a new Concorde agreement. And it is for that that I want us to change all these procedures that have become too burdensome. Simply put, we first had to stabilise the 2008 Championship.
sign in