Formula One's civil war

Another bone of contention is the decision about where the 17 races in each year’s championship should take place. About half of them are still in Europe, but the season now stretches from Melbourne in March to Abu Dhabi in November, passing through China, Brazil, Japan and Malaysia on the way. The newer venues were added partly to broaden the sport’s appeal but mainly because the promoters concerned have built fancy courses and paid lavishly for the privilege of staging races. Meanwhile France, the spiritual home of motor racing, and America, the most important car market in the world, have been struck off F1’s calendar, to the carmakers’ dismay.

The global recession caused the simmering discontent in the sport to boil over into open revolt. After rising costs forced Honda to drop out of F1 last December, Mr Mosley responded by capping the amount each team could spend at £40m a year, for fear that the smaller teams might disappear from the starting grid. Teams that agreed to the limit would be free to introduce any technical changes they dreamed up to improve their cars. Those that refused the cap would be subject to tough scrutiny and stricter technical rules—an intrusion the carmaking teams in particular resented. They wanted the freedom to spend as much as they liked and to innovate; they are, after all, in the sport to boost their image. So they threatened to set up an alternative championship under the auspices of FOTA.

Previous revolts had crumbled, most recently in 2005. But this week FOTA was confident it had lined up a credible series of races with enough circuits, famous drivers and loyal sponsors to threaten F1’s monopoly. In the event, the contingency plans were not needed. Mr Ecclestone seems to have deserted his old friend after FOTA won the backing of the ultimate authority in F1, the private-equity firm CVC Capital, which bought control of Mr Ecclestone’s sports-rights company a few years ago. Its bankers had been worrying that the sport it had bought might fall apart. In the end, it was Mr Mosley and Mr Ecclestone’s authority that collapsed.

Back to top ^^

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views.

Click