There’s been a bit of chat this week about a driver’s strike in Formula 1 - something that hasn’t happened since 1982 when the drivers got together, locked themselves in a bus and decided they weren’t going to race because of proposed clauses in the driver licensing system.  The license system is once more the source of the controversy but this time it’s strictly about money.

The driver’s are facing a 600% increase in the license fee, unilaterally imposed by the FIA.  The driver’s say they have on two occasions attempted to initiate a dialog that might result in a compromise. The FIA has refused to talk but the governing body insists they have not received a firm date from the drivers.  With the process going nowhere, idle chatter has turned to a potential driver’s strike at the British Grand Prix

However, does the Grand Prix Driver’s Association actually have the right to strike?  The short answer is no, but the legal reality is more complicated.

Generally, the right to strike is only available to trade unions.  Professional associations are not labour unions, they are more like special interest groups.  In the case of the GPDA, their primary interest is in safety and in lobbying the FIA to insure cars and tracks meet safety standards and that adequate medical response exists at all venues.  Unlike a union, the GPDA does not negotiate driver contracts, terms of employment or represent the driver in a grievance process with an employer.

Based on this explanation, the GPDA has no legal right to strike because it is not, by definition or actions, a trade union.

If the drivers refuse to race in protest of the licensing fees (as opposed to a safety issue) then they could be terminated by their employers for breach of contract.  Fortunately for the drivers, Formula 1 is a performance based business and the fastest pilots are always in demand. The overpaid or over hyped might find themselves on extended holidays.

The more complicated reality is that the FIA has the ability to act unilaterally with respect to licenses and rules. This situation is not really proving all that helpful to the sport.  The current unrest (this time by the drivers) is yet another sign that the system needs to be changed so that all parties have a say in the governance of the sport.

Sadly, autocratic institutions and their leaders rarely compromise without threats and unrest.  The history of unions is full of such people.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Santa Claus; The Easter Bunny; musicians who can sing. These are just some of my long held beliefs that have been shattered over the years. Today, another one of those tenets was destroyed (unintentionally) by Dean McNulty of the Toronto Sun.

Dean, who probably mingled with plenty of folks this weekend in Montreal, reported today that a couple of the ‘celeb’s in the paddock were paid for their appearances! My first reaction was shock since I have grown up believing in the glamor and glitz of F1. I bought the story hook line and sinker that Formula 1 was an elite sport for an elite crowd. How wrong I was.

Even more hurtful was the identity of these paid ‘A’ listers - though in my opinion such a term flatters this pair. Montrealers didn’t get Tomkat or Brangelina. Nope, they got Pam Anderson and P Diddy! Apparently they were a steal at $100,000 and $200,000 respectively.

So, is this what F1 has been reduced to - buying tacky celebrity endorsements to perpetuate the illusion of glamor? Is the sport spending good money on cheesy celebs because it can’t draw the A-list? I’m totally disillusioned but a few thousand bucks and a VIP pass to the next race might make me feel just a bit better.

Are you listening Bernie?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I like Top Gear. I really do because it’s great entertainment. That’s exactly why the show’s cast does not belong in F1 and why the BBC needs to rethink their rumored decision to include them in it’s 2009 F1 presentations.

First, sport should be entertaining, but not entertainment. Top Gear is as much about the witty one-liners from Jeremy Clarkson as it is the cars. In reality, the cars on Top Gear are just props for satirical automotive commentary - not that there’s anything wrong with that, it just doesn’t have any place in sports broadcasting. Fans expect informed and objective analysis of what’s happening on the track when it happens. That’s not something that they’re going to get from the Top Gear crew.

Second, the cars are the stars of the show, not the celebs in the broadcast booth. Bernie Ecclestone might disagree, but fans tune into F1 to see the cars (and drivers) not TV types. Most established entertainers would admit to not wanting to play second fiddle to a bunch of noisy cars following one another around in circles. Who can blame them but that’s the job.

Finally there’s the man, Jeremy Clarkson. A lot of what he says is right on the money – especially about F1 being sterile and boring but it’s hard to see him promoting a product he has so many problems with.  Absolutely there are things wrong with F1 but reminding the audience of them every two weeks will not grow the viewership.

A true fan is needed in the broadcast booth that both knows and loves F1 and is prepared to be the unofficial ambassador of the sport. Handing the microphone to anyone not relishing that role is a dire mistake.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt. FUD is a common acronym in the computer world, most often associated with Microsoft, the large monopolistic company hell-bent on controlling the software market. Microsoft often uses FUD to convince potential customers of the dangers of purchasing products from or partnering with a rival. They argue that you are always safer staying with a known product and avoiding the risk and uncertainty of change. This is also the latest tactic initiated by Max Mosley in his increasingly desperate campaign to remain in power as FIA President.

In a letter to all the FIA Club Presidents, Max plays the fear, uncertainty and doubt card by suggesting that great harm could come to the FIA should he be removed from power via a scheduled non-confidence vote on June 3.

First, he suggests that the members should fear losing their control over Formula 1 to Big Business. Mosley paints a dark future in which the FIA loses control of F1 to the Commercial Rights Holders. This shadow cabinet of business interests would then decide the rules governing the sport. Unbeknown to the members, this attack on the FIA is occurring right now and Max is doing all he can to hold the line.

Curiously, the letter does not explain why members should not be suspicious of the timing of the information, this being the first mention of a hostile takeover. Second, it does not explain to what degree members currently have any real control over Formula 1. In truth, the autocratic Mosley has always wielded the real power of the organization.

Next, Mosley mentions several challenges facing the FIA including the aforementioned F1 takeover, the future of the WRC and the potential divorce between the sporting and mobility clubs. He suggests possible solutions to these problems that imply that without the leadership of an experienced hand who understands the issues, there is much uncertainly ahead for the FIA.

Finally, should you be someone who thinks that there is just as capable a candidate out there who could rise to these challenges Max has some bad news for you. Just the process of choosing a new President could very well put the FIA at risk - members might inadvertently elect a ‘Manchurian-like’ candidate controlled by the very forces that seek to undermine the organization. No one can be trusted! Doubt all who might seek power! Trust Max, who you know, from reading the letter, has fought the good fight on behalf of the FIA for years and years.

The underlying message from Max is clear. “Let me do the job until I retire next year because, frankly, no one else can handle all of these challenges better than I can and the chances of you electing someone even worse than me are almost guaranteed.”

The argument has some logic to it, but only if you’re willing to believe that Max himself wasn’t helped into power by individuals with commercial agendas and that many of the problems facing the FIA at the moment are not a direct consequence of his experienced leadership.

I believe that it’s questionable that the future of Formula 1 is so closely tied to Mosley’s own fate. He has done much for the sport but he is not the sport. My hope is that I’m proven right on June 3.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Today, the deafening silence that has followed allegations of tawdry exploits involving  FIA President Max Mosley was broken by four auto manufacturers determined to distance themselves from the scandal.  BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Honda and Toyota all issued statements that make it clear that Mosley has a struggle ahead to keep his Presidency.

BMW and Mercedes-Benz issued the following joint statement this morning:

“The content of the publications is disgraceful. As a company, we strongly distance ourselves from it. This incident concerns Max Mosley both personally and as President of the FIA, the global umbrella organisation for motoring clubs. Its consequences therefore extend far beyond the motor sport industry. We await a response from the relevant FIA bodies.”

Honda issued a similar release later in the day:

“It is necessary that senior figures in sport and business maintain the highest standards of conduct in order to fulfil their duties with integrity and respect. The Honda Racing F1 Team is extremely disappointed by recent events surrounding Mr Mosley and we are concerned that the reputation of Formula One and all its participants is being damaged. We request that the FIA gives this matter careful consideration and reaches an immediate decision in the best interests of F1 and Motorsport.” 

And Toyota echoed all these sentiments with the following statement:

“Toyota Motorsport does not approve of any behaviour which could be seen to damage Formula 1’s image, in particular any behaviour which could be understood to be racist or anti-Semitic. Senior figures within any sport or business, including motorsport, must adhere to high standards of behaviour. When all the facts are known, it will be for the FIA to decide whether Mr Mosley has met the moral obligations which come with the position of FIA President.”

If all this were not enough, the Crown Prince of Bahrain, Sheikh Salman Bin Hamad Al-Khalifa, has requested that Mr. Mosley not attend this weekend’s Grand Prix in Bahrain.

With the silence now broken, voices in the sport (respected and otherwise) are speaking out, calling for Mosley’s resignation.  Against the growing momentum of disconent, there is not a voice of support for Mosley to be heard.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!