Date post: | 12-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | hnd-assignment-help |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
The Fia And The Established Sporting Governing Bodies Management Essay
For assignment help please contact
at [email protected] or [email protected]
Introduction
Ever since the replacement of post modernity with globalisation as the
predominant social theory (T. Miller et al, 2001), academics of sport have
taken an interest on International Sport Governing bodies and their role in
an era where, (according to the hyperglobalist tradition at least (D. Held et
all, 1999), nation states and their institutions are going into decline. The
two most commonly mentioned (and researched) International Sport
Institutions are FIFA ( J. Sugden and A. Tomlinson 1999, J. Sugden and A.
Tomlinson 2003), (the International Federation of Football Associations)
and the IOC (the International Olympic Committee), (M. Roche, 2000).
These are the respective governing bodies of football and the Olympic
Games worldwide, and subsequently responsible of staging the world's two
most popular sporting events; the FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games.
This essay will attempt to investigate in what extent does a slightly different
sport, motor racing (through its most popular discipline, F1 GP racing),
complies with the trademarks in world sport organisation set by the
aforementioned institutions. For this purpose, I have opted to compare the
structure of FIFA and the FIA (Federation Internationale de l' Automobile),
as well as the two sports (from their league structure point of view mainly),.
Before that, however, I have decided to outline some of the characteristics
of motor sport, which make it defer from mainstream ‘bodily' sports, as well
as clarify some definitions and terminology that is widely used to describe
it. Moreover, I have seeked to make a comparison between the two
individuals that transformed these two organisations into what they are
today: Dr Joao Havelange and Bernie Ecclestone.
The role of these individuals within the structures of the Fedrations will be
examined, taking into account the existing theories concerning agency,
which try to understand the role individuals can play in a social system.
Specifically, the essay will focus on the impact Havelange (as FIFA
president from 1974-1998) and Ecclestone (as F1's commercial rights'
holder) had in what Miller refers to as ‘Televisualisation (Miller et all, op.
cit. p. 4)' of sport.
Televisualisation, along with Commodification (ibid, p. 4), will be further
discussed, as they were the key factors that resulted in the economic
growth of both FIFA and FIA, by being the marketing tools for boosting the
image of football and motor racing worldwide. As a conclusion, some
thoughts about the commercial future of Formula One will be outlined,
mostly influenced by Sugden and Tomlinson's thoughts on the future of
FIFA (J. Sugden and A. Tomlinson 2005).
Unfortunately, due to the relative lack of scholarly sources on motor racing,
historical information has been gathered mostly from journalistic sources,
with every attempt made to ensure these are credible ones. The same
applies to information acquired from the World Wide Web, where only
established sites (such as the FIA official site, the Financial Times and the
European Union) have been used. Finally, as most of the original notes for
this essay had been in Greek, I have used the Oxford Greek-English
Learner's Dictionary as a reference (D. N. Stavropoulos, 2004).
The nature of Motor Sport
Due to its peculiarities, motor sport is not a popular participant sport,
unlike football. Whereas football is easy to play, requiring minimum
equipment such as a ball and two posts, and can take any place in any open
space, motor sport is centred around such a sophisticated equipment as a
racing car, which is very expensive to purchase and run, and it is restricted
to specifically designed race tracks. Many consider it not to be a ‘proper'
sport; First, because a driver's ability is compromised by the
competitiveness of his or her equipment, and therefore not always the most
capable can challenge for victory, if they are not well-equipped. Secondly,
because mainstream sport in most cases involves an athlete physically using
his/her body to perform. A person sitting on a car is not considered as a true
athlete, although in the higher disciplines, such as F1, a driver has to
endure lateral forces of up to 4g for approximately 1 and a half hour (the
average duration of a GP race), and at the same time being completely
concentrated in order to achieve consecutive laps with accuracy of tenths of
a second. Motor Sport has various disciplines, which, unlike many other
sports, are available for representatives of both genders to participate in
and compete against each other. The motor sport discipline whose structure
will be compared to football will be Formula One, for many the highest
echelon of motor racing (Table 1). More specifically, with ‘Formula One' we
refer to the Formula One World Championship, which is regulated by the
FIA.
Racing TypePower Output (in bhp)
Champ Car 750
Formula 1 750
F1 equivalency
Formula750
Indy Racing
League670
Grand Prix Masters 650
GP2 580
A1GP 520
Table 1: (Power outputs of racing categories (F1Racing magazine 2006)
Definitions
What is Formula One
The name ‘Formula One' was only introduced in 1947 when racing activities
resumed after the 2nd World War. Formula 1 was actually a code used to
identify the technical regulations under which grand prix cars should be run
at the races. Formula 1 racing began in 1947 therefore, although only in
1950 was a World Championship for Formula one cars organised (A.
Cimarosti). However, F1 as a discipline exists in other sports as well, for
example powerboating.
What is a Grand Prix
The first ‘Grand Prix' (grand prize) for automobiles was organised as such
for the first time in 1906 by the AFC (Automobile Club de France) (ibid).
Ever since it has become almost synonymous with big motor sport events,
and with Formula One since the inception of the World Championship in
1950. The term Grand Prix though is also used in other sports, such as
motorcycle racing and some IAAF meetings.
Ownership of Formula One - the FIA
The FIA owns the name ‘Formula One World Championship'(www. fia.com.
2006). In their website the FIA describe themselves as ‘a non-profit making
association (www.fia.com/thefia/Organisation/organisation.html 2006)' who,
‘since it's birth in 1904, (it) has been dedicated to representing the interests
of motor organisations and motor car users throughout the world. It is also
the governing body of motor sport worldwide' (ibid). Today it consists of
213 national motoring organisations from 125 countries
(www.fia.com/thefia/Membership/index_membershtml, 2006). We should
bear in mind that unlike for example FIFA, which only has authority over
football, the FIA is responsible for all the types of car racing (rallying,
racing, hill climbing etc), but that does not include motorcycle racing, which
is the responsibility of the FIM (Federation International of Motorcycle).
The date of its foundation suggests it was conceived during a time when,
according to Miller again, it was Europe's ‘high point for setting in place the
global governance of sport. Miller points out that most of the world's
governing bodies were founded after the proclamation of the Olympic
movement at the turn of the century; he also goes on to mention the
establishment of equivalents for football, cricket, athletics and tennis (T.
Miller et al, op. cit. p. 10 ). However, one of the peculiarities of the FIA is
that it is not entirely a sporting body (see Table 2).
FIA General Assembly
FIA President
Deputy President FIA Senate Deputy President
(Mobility and Automobile) (Sport)
FIA
World Council for Mobility and the Automobile World Motor Sport Council
Mobility and Automobile Commissions Sporting Commissions
International Court of appeal
Secretariat
Table 2. The structure of the FIA (www.fia.com, 2006 ).
Instead, the FIA consists of the World council for Mobility and the
Automobile, and the World Motor Sport council. The World Motor Sport
Council is the world governing body of the FIA Formula One World
Championship. This is the sporting branch of the FIA under whose
jurisdiction come ‘all forms of international motor sport involving land
vehicles with four or more wheels'. Of significant importance is the
existence of the FIA International Court of Appeal, which is ‘the final appeal
tribunal for international motor sport. (...)Iit resolves disputes brought
before it by any motor sport's National Sporting Authorities worldwide, or
by the President of the FIA. It can also settle non-sporting disputes brought
by national motor racing organisations affiliated to the FIA'
(www.fia.com/thefia/Court_of_appeal/index.html, 2006).
The existence of the International Court of Appeal within the FIA structure
points out to what Ken Foster refers to ‘private justice' among global
sporting organisations. He argues that ‘the intent [...] is to create a zone of
private justice within the sporting field of regulation that excludes judicial
supervision or intervention with the decision-making process of
international sporting federations. It denies athletes -[and teams]- access to
national courts and leaves them dependent on the arbitrary justice of the
international sporting federation themselves. Athletes can claim redress
only from an arbitration panel created and appointed by the international
sporting federation itself [...], (K. Foster, 2005). It appears that the FIA has
followed FIFA's and the IOC's example, in taking advantage of the
difficulties of monitoring INGOs. Foster underlines that ‘states are unwilling
or incapable of challenging the power of international sporting
federations[...] (ibid. p.68). In addition, he points out alternative ways of
‘avoiding legal scrutiny' by making it ‘compulsory in their rules that
disputes go only to private arbitration, and by asking athletes ‘to sign
agreements not tot take legal action against international sporting
federations'(ibid. p.69). Indeed, according to Allison, ‘[modern sport] has
developed highly autonomous international organisations (...)' (L. Allison
and T Monnington, 2005).
In the same text, Foster has previously commented on the general attitude
of powerful sporting bodies: ‘Historically, sport has been governed by
management structures that were hierarchical and authoritarian. Their
ideology, and often their legal form, was that of a private club (...). The
commercialisation, and the later commodification [which will be discussed
later on this essay] of sport put pressure on their legal form. Private clubs
began to exercise significant economic power over sport. (...). International
sporting bodies, as federations of national associations, in turn organised
global sport. (...) the need for due process in decision-making and the need
to prevent abuses of dominant power within the sport were two important
consequences of this [the] legal intervention (K Foster, in Allison, 2005).
So far it appears that the FIA is complying with the models of regulation of
FIFA and the IOC in certain aspects, such as being an International Non-
Government- Organisation (INGO). But, because of its very nature, the
motor sport governing body does not entirely follow FIFA's and the IOC's
patterns. For example, Sugden and Tomlinson (again), argue that ‘drawing
upon Archer's classification of types of international organisations, (C.
Archer, 1992), (...) since its foundation in 1904, FIFA has transformed itself
from and INGO (International Non-Government- Organisation) into a BINGO
(Business International Non-Government Organisation (...), (J Sugden and A
Tomlinson, 2005). They go on to comment that ‘FIFA's reason for existence
has been increasingly profit-driven (...) and ‘has become a leading example
of the professionalisation and commercialisation of modern sport (...), (Ibid.
p.27). From a capitalistic point of view, one would assume that it would be
normal for every organisation to seek profit. Sugden and Tomlinson, though,
observe that such commercial activity coming from INGOs is illegal, and
refer to Morozov's claim: ‘As Morozov states, the aims and activities of an
international organisation must be in keeping with the universally accepted
principles of international law embodied in the charter of the United
Nations and must not have a commercial character or pursue profit-making
aims, ( G. Morozov, (1997).
( However, the FIA cannot be considered to belong in the category of INGOs
becoming BINGOs. Like FIFA and the IOC, it has opted to locate its
corresponding offices in Switzerland (www.fia.com/global/contacts .html,
2006), something which, as Sugden and Tomlinson point out, ‘underlines
[FIFA's] political and fiscal autonomy (and unaccountability), ( J Sugden and
A Tomlinson, 1998); but it has not directly benefited economically by
promoting the Formula One World Championship.
Although it states that part of its resources ‘shall be derived from income
arising directly or indirectly from sporting activities, including the FIA
champions (www.fia.com/thefia/statutes/Files/index, 2006), hips, it cannot
benefit directly from exploiting Formula One's and other FIA
championships' commercial rights. Foster, again, gives a detailed account of
how the case of motor sport became a unique example of governmental
intrusion into a global sporting body's self-regulation, ( K Foster, in Allison
2005). According to a European Commission principal, ‘a governing body of
sport needs to separate its regulation of the sport from its commercial
activities in promoting events and in maximising their commercial value; a
governing body must not use its regulatory functions improperly to exclude
its commercial rivals from the sport (Official European Journal, 13/06/01,
Cases COMP/35.163: COMP/36.638; COMP/36.776. GTR/FIA & others,
2005). It is suggested that FIA used its monopoly position by the threat of
imposing sanctions to drivers, circuits, teams and promoters who wouldn't
grant them exclusivity, thus rendering them unable to compete in rival
series. Moreover, broadcasters who televised rival events were given least
favourable agreements (K Foster in Allison, 2005).
The result of the European Commissions intervention was the change of
regulations on behalf of the FIA: ‘They insisted on a complete separation of
the regulatory function of FIA, as the governing body of the sport, and its
commercial function of exploiting the broadcasting rights to all motor sport
events under its jurisdiction. The separation is (was) designed to prevent
conflicts of interest. The Commission also limited the extent to which FIA,
as the regulator of the sport, can take measures to prevent rival promoters
of events competing with FIA's events. The Commission wanted to separate
the function of the FIA in promoting events (and thereby gaining
commercial benefit) from that of licensing events as part of its regulatory
function. The role of a governing body, according to the Commission, is to
act fairly and create a level playing field so that all promoters of events are
treated equally and carefully (Ibid. p.84). Foster justifies the Commissions'
decision thus: ‘The different approach by the Commission can be explained
because motor sport is a globalised, rather than an internationalised, sport.
It had a commercial structure of management and offered no cultural or
social justification of its anti-competitive behaviour. As such it was subject
to normal commercial criteria in its regulation, (Ibid); and goes on to
comment that ‘this example may be unusual in that there was an excessive
intermingling of the regulatory and commercial functions within the
governing structures of international motor sport. However, it indicates that
regional regulation can be effective and that the fear that globalised sport
can escape all regulation and be immune from legal intervention may be
exaggerated (Ibid).
Structure of the FIA Formula One World Championship
Indeed, the structure of the FIA Formula One World Championship seems
very much to resemble the American (commercial) model of sport, although
being originally a European concept, as described above. Foster, once
again, offers the key characteristics in American and European sport. (see
Table 3.)
European (socio-cultural)American (Commercial)
Organisational
motiveSporting Competition Profit
League
structure
Open Pyramid. Promotion and
relegation
Closed league; ring-
fenced
Governing
body's roleVertical solidarity; sport for all
Profit maximisation;
promote elite stars as
celebrities
Cultural
Identity
National leagues; local teams.
Opposition to relocation of teams &
transnational leagues
Transnational or global
leagues; footloose
franchises
International
CompetitionsImportant for National Identity Non-existent or minimal
Structure of
governanceSingle representative federal body League or commissioner
Table 3. (European model of sport vs American model of sport), (Ibid. p.74).
By attempting to compare the structures of football and Formula One, we
can relatively easily identify that the former belongs to the European
tradition. It was indeed conceived as a sporting competition first and
foremost. It is rather doubtful that there had been a plan to make profit out
of football when the FA was founded in 1886. The open pyramid system is
adopted, with clubs being promoted and relegated form the divisions of
their national leagues, depending on their performance. Football has been
conceived as a sport for all, and FIFA's initiatives such as the goal project
confirm this (J Sugdan and A Tomlinson, 2003). Moreover, with the
existence of events such as the FIFA World Cup which is exclusively
contested for by National teams, the importance of national identity in
football is displayed. Finally, the FIFA remains the only representative body
for the sport. In contrast, the structure of the FIA Formula One World
Championship complies in general terms with the American (commercial
one), although with few noticeable exceptions. It should be noted that,
before starting to analyse Formula One racing using this model, we can
identify in its nature all but one of the strands that are identified by Scholte,
(A. J. Scholte, 2000). The only one absent is Internationalisation, as there
are no international competitions in Formula One. Instead, it is an entirely
globalised sport. There are no national Formula One championships. The
only Formula One championship organised today is the World
Championship. Liberalisation, universalisation and, most importantly,
globalisation are all evident:
Liberalisation:
There are no cross border restrictions in Formula One, as it does not
operate on a national level. The races can be held in any country, provided
it has an FIA- affiliated national sporting body, and drivers and teams can
come form any country as well.
Universalisation:
‘(...)A global sport (...) needs to be simple in its structure and thus readily
understood by those who have never played the game before, (Foster, in
Allison, p. 66). This is more than evident in Formula One, whereas although
most people are unlikely to have driven a Formula One car in full racing
trim, unless they are professional racing drivers, they can easily understand
its concept, that the faster car wins the race.
Globalisation/ Americanisation:
ÂÂ Rationalisation of Formula One has been achieved since its conception
in 1950. Written rules were adopted and a championship was organised in
order to ‘rationally identify' (Ibid), the best driver, (and the best team in
1958 with the introduction of the Constructors' championship). In addition,
it also complies with imperialism and westernization. Foster comments that
‘Developing countries are excluded because they have fewer facilities (...).
Sports like motor racing require massive technical capital that excludes
them' (Ibid).
De-Territorialisation:
Foster observes that ‘we have global broadcasting of sport and global fans;
(Ibid. p.67), and goes on to quote Giulianotti: ‘Globalisation brings with it a
disembedding of local social and political ties between club [-in Formula
One's case, team] and community (R. Giulianotti, 2005). This is again
present in the case of Formula One.
As races are not contested in the teams' home grounds, but rather, in race
tracks scattered throughout the world, there is not much connection
between their national identity (with the exception of Ferrari, who still
carries some sense of ‘Italian-ness'). Re-location for Formula One teams is
usual, provided this gives them a better chance of winning. Hence, Renault
are based in Enstone, UK, Toyota in Cologne, Germany, etc. Furthermore,
the ease with which teams can change their identity overnight is unique:
The tartan-liveried team of former Scottish triple World Champion Jackie
Stewart, founded in 1997 was turned into Jaguar in 2000, proudly painted in
British Racing Green colour, and Red Bull in 2005, after the name of an
Austrian-made energy drink.
The globalised nature of Formula One (especially in its difference to
internationalised sport) has also been identified by Houlihan: ‘Globalised
sport (...) has rootless teams, with multi national or nationally ambiguous
teams' ( B. Houlihan, 2005), [for example McLaren are a British team,
founded by a New Zealander (Bruce McLaren), have a German engine
provider (Mercedes) and their drivers come from Finland (Kimi Raikkonen)
and Colombia (Juan Pablo Montoya)]. ‘These rootless, de-territorialised
sports are often typified by their identification with commercial sponsors'.
[for example ‘Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro', and ‘Mild Seven Benetton Renault
F1 Team']. ‘Formula One teams are defined by their manufacturers, such as
Ferrari' (Ibid).
Going back to the American vs European model, we have already argued
that although Formula One racing was conceived in Europe on the turn of
the 20th century, its current management has rendered it a primarily profit-
making sport. One could argue that until 1968, when cigarette advertising
(and generally corporate advertising) appeared in Formula One,
(http://8w.forix.com/love.html, see also http://8w.forix.com/myths.html,
2005), the sport belonged to the European tradition. Up until then, any
profit made was incidental, not central. Only starting and prize money was
available to the competitors. In the 1970s, with sponsorship cash and
television money heavily influencing the sport (P. Menard, 2004), Formula
One became a profit-making sport. The role of television coverage in that
will be discussed later in the essay.
As for the league structure of Formula One, it is totally commercial. As
mentioned before, there is only one Formula One contest, the World
Championship. Entry to it is not based on a promotion system, but strictly
on capitalistic values. In other words, only those who can afford it can
enter. A recent example was that of the new Super Aguri racing team.
Although the rules state that ‘applications to compete in the Championship
may be submitted to the FIA (...) two years prior to the Championship in
which the applicant wishes to compet (...), (www.fia.com
/resources/documents/, 2006), the team applied in autumn 2005. However,
the application was successful. On January 2006, FIA issued the following
statement: ‘Following receipt of the necessary financial guarantee and with
the unanimous support of the competing teams, the FIA has accepted the
late entry of the Super Aguri F1 Team to the 2006 Formula One World
Championship, (http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?
ID=208865&FS=F1, 2006). This incident is characteristic of an American-
type closed league, as Foster describes it: ‘The entry [to the league] is
controlled by the incumbents. There is a fixed number of teams in the
league [in Formula One's case, the highest number of cars that can take
part in the Championship is 24] with no relegation. New teams cannot
break into the closed shop unless the league decides that its overall
economic wealth will be improved by expansion franchises. The economic
risks of sporting failure are reduced and this makes capital investment in a
team franchise more attractive' (K. Foster, in Allison (2005), p. 75).
In terms of the Governing body's role, it is also an occasion where F1
follows the American model. Vertical solidarity is non-existent, as there are
no lower Formula One leagues. Even for motor sport in general, Formula
One revenues are not redistributed to lower formulae, and there is no effort
to make motor racing a ‘sport for all'. Only whoever can afford motor racing
can enter it. Formula One seeks to maximise its profits by commodificating
itself. Elite stars are promoted as celebrities. For example, an attempt to
present Jenson Button as a star has taken place in Britain, while in the case
of Germany, Lincoln Allison and Terry Monnington comment: ‘(Lotthar
Matthaus), Michael Schumacher, (and Bernhard Langer) have been more
importantly formative of young people's images of Germany in the last
generation that have Fichte, Hegel and Bismark, (L. Allison and T.
Monningtonin, 2005).
The American model seems to suit Formula One best again when questions
about its relation to national identity arise. What Foster observes as a
characteristic of the American model, is that ‘there is little sense of national
identity (...). The leagues identification of its supporters is one of
commercial customers rather than fans. The business can and will be moved
whenever commercial considerations dictate, more like a supermarket chain
than a sports team, (Foster, in Allison p. 75).
This is partly true for Formula One and relevant to de-territorilisation. Most
teams can relocate, as mentioned, and race venues can be changed, as was
the case in recent years, with traditional European races (like the Austrian
GP) being dropped from the calendar in favour of new venues in Asia
(Bahrain, Malaysia, Turkey, China). However, when the sport was
conceived, (prior to advertising) the racing cars would be usually painted in
their national colours (green for Britain, blue for France, silver for
Germany, Red for Italy etc). Today only Ferrari maintains some sense of
national identity, being the only team remaining of those who took part in
the inaugural 1950 World Championship; and they are still carrying the
traditional racing colours (‘Rosso Corse'). It is the only team that has fans
(usually fans support drivers, not teams), the tifosi, and the race tracks of
Imola and Monza are considered their ‘home'. In a lesser extent, that could
apply to British teams and the Silverstone circuit. Few customs that refer to
the presence of nationalism in past years still remain. One such example is
the playing of the national anthem for both winning driver and constructor
during the award-giving ceremony. At the same time, the hoisting of the
flags in honour of the first, second and third drivers takes place. Another is
the existence of a small flag next to the name of the driver, to indicate his or
her nationality, on their racing overalls and on the sides of the car's cockpit.
Finally, there are no national teams competitions in Formula One, (In 2006,
a rival series to F1, A1GP appeared), and, as mentioned before, the FIA is
the only regulating sporting body.
Televisualisation
However, we have seen that in practice, because of the aforementioned
intervention of the European Commission in the governing of Formula One,
many key decisions about the sport are taken by the person who
administrates its commercial rights and not the governing body. This person
could be considered the equivalent of a commissioner in a commercial
model.
In the case of Formula One, he is Bernie Ecclestone, through his FOM
company. FOA/FOM, companies controlled by (...) Ecclestone, are engaged
in the promotion of the FIA Formula One Championship.
The 1998 Concorde Agreement provides that FOA is the Commercial Rights
Holder to the FIA Formula One Championship. FOA is thus responsible for
televising and generally commercializing the Championship. On 28 May
1999, FOA changed its name to Formula One Management Limited (FOM)
which manages the rights. The commercial rights themselves were taken
over by an associated company, now also named FOA,
(http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/c_169/c_16920010613en000
50011.pdf).
Miller underlines the importance of televisualisation in sport: ‘Television
was the prime motor in the development of post-war sport(...) helping to
constitute a sports/media complex or media-sports-culture complex of
sports organisation, media/marketing organisations, and media personnel
(broadcasters and journalists). Dependency of sports organisations upon the
media is due to the importance of continued revenue for (...) competitions.
The direction of sport incorporation might be viewed as media exposure->
increased revenue-> professionalisation-> more competitive and
spectacular play-> larger television audiences-> further media exposure
and so on. As the media becomes increasingly important in this cycle, they
dictate what they want from the sport [in Formula One that was evident
when pressure from TV companies resulted in changing the qualifying
format that had existed for decades, in order for there to be track action
during all the time of the coverage, and space for advertising brakes] (...).
This complex places media at the very heart of sport's structures and
practices, because without the media's capacity to carry sports signs and
myths to large and diverse audiences across the globe,(...)sport could be a
minor folk pursuit. (...) Television coverage, especially in its satellite form,
has become the prime unit of currency in the cultural economy of sport(...).
The economic infrastructure of professional sport would collapse without
the media's material and cultural capital' (T. Miller, op. cit. p. 68); and
Foster adds: ‘The collective selling of broadcasting rights to sporting events
(...) is a key factor in promoting solidarity within the sport. Unless the
governing body can control these valuable commodities, they will be unable
to generate sufficient revenue to act as trustees for a redistributive
mechanism, (K. Foster, in Allison, p. 82).
In Formula One, that ‘redistributive mechanism is the Concorde agreement,
(Article 4.2 cases COMP/35.163, COMP/36.638, COMP/36.776 GTR/FIA &
others), a secret agreement between FIA, the teams and Ecclestone. The
Concorde Agreement dictates what percentage of the revenues from the
exploitation of the commercial rights of F1 each of the parties will be
receiving.
Agents
Miller's previous over-underlining of the importance of the media resembles
the answer Guido Tognoni gave to Sugden and Tomlinson, when asked
about the role of Havelange in the transformation of FIFA into a
heavyweight sporting organisation:'in the 60's it started to explode...the
money...and this is not the merit of Havelange, it is the merit of the
circumstances of the time.
He didn't do a magical miracle, he did what everybody would have done
during this time(...) TV made it', (Guido Tognoni, 1998). The authors are
right to observe that ‘Tognoni [was] both right and wrong (...) -right to
emphasize the context, but wrong to underplay Havelange's astuteness in
seeking the appropriate partners for his development plans', (J. Sugden and
A. Tomlinson, 1998).Sugden and Tomlinson's viewpoint was based on
Anthony Giddens' theory of structuration.
In his chapter ‘Elements of the theory of structuration, (A Giddens, 1984),
Giddens points out that ‘agency refers(...) to [people's] capability in of doing
things; [It] concerns events of which an individual is the perpetrator, in the
sense that the individual could, at any phase in a given sequence of conduct,
have acted differently.
Whatever happened would not have happened if that individual had not
intervened, (Ibid). On the one hand ‘Havelange could hardly have foreseen
the extreme forms of influence that marketing and media would have on
aspects of football (...). On the other, ‘this is not to deny the importance of
the agent in historical process and social structure, (J. Sugden and A.
Tomlinson, op. cit.). The same should apply for Bernie Ecclestone; He made
very good use of the situation he found himself in, and proof to that is that
he's more renown that the FIA president, Max Mosley.
Conclusion
Formula one and football have many similarities between them, but also
differences that are the outcome of their different natures. However, they
seem to follow some patterns like the organisational structure of an INGO,
taking advantage of the marketing opportunities that television coverage
brought in the 60s. According to Lovell, Ecclestone even recruited Christian
Vogt in the 80s as a TV consultant, who had previously been handling the
TV rights for FIFA,UEFA and the IAAF amongst others in the past, (T.
Lovell, p.227); In recent years, they have both made attempts to emphasize
on their ‘global' nature, trying to brake in the North American and South-
East Asia continents. In 1994 FIFA tried to increase (association) football's
popularity in the United States, by staging the World Cup there; and in
2000, Formula One re-visited America for the first time since 1991.
However, Americans seem to prefer their own football code (NFL) to
‘soccer' and their motor sport institutions (ChampCar, NASCAR) to F1.
South East Asia proved to be a more convenient location, with FIFA hosting
its World Cup in Japan and Korea in 2002; at the same time, F1 broke into
China and Malaysia, by staging GPs in Shanghai and Kuala Lumpur. As
opposed to the American case, their quests into Asia proved to be a bit more
successful, with the emergence of local heroes, such as the South Korea
national team, and Malaysian driver Alex Yoong.
The question for the future is until when these sports will be able to remain
profitable under their current structure. Will the money from World Cups
and GPs continue to be flowing? And what about the successors to the
agents that made it happen? In FIFA, Blatter has already replaced
Havelange, and Sugden and Tomlinson have hinted that he might not be as
good as his predecessor, (J. Sugden and A. Tolinson, 2005). Bernie
Ecclestone is already 77; so far, his management of Formula One's
commercial rights remain as professional as ever. But for how long will this
situation last, considering no successor with Ecclestone's stature has been
identified? In any case, if they want to retain their hegemonic positions in
World Sport, both governing bodies must ensure they are able to adapt to
the ever changing social environment.
NOTES
See T. Miller et al, (2001), Globalization and Sport, SAGE Publications, p. 6
For the hyperglobalist thesis and the Globalization debate in general, see D.
held et al, (1999), Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture,
Polity Press, p. 3
For example, see J. Sugden and A. Tomlinson, (1999), Great Balls of fire-
How Big Money is hijacking World Football, Mainstream Publishing, J.
Sugden and A. Tomlinson (2003), Badfellas-FIFA family at war, Mainstream
Publishing and others
For example M. Roche, (2000), Mega Events in modernity: Olympics and
Expos in the growth of global culture, Routledge, H.J Lenskyj, Inside the
Olympic Industry: Power, Politics and Activism, State University of New
York Press
Miller et al, op. cit. p.4
Ibid. p. 4
J. Sugden and A. Tomlinson, (2005), Not for the good of the game in The
Global Politics of Sport: The role of global institutions in Sport (Allison),
Routledge
D. N. Stavropoulos, (2004), Oxford Greek-English Learner's Dictionary,
Oxford University Press
Taken from F1 Racing magazine, (2006), January issue, p. 8.
A. Cimarosti, The history of Grand Prix Motor Racing
Ibid
For a full list of FIA-run competitions, (2006), see www.fia.com (Accessed 2
February)
www.fia.com/thefia/Organisation/organisation.html , (2006), (Accessed 2
February)
Ibid.
A full list of the FIA's affiliated mem/er clubs can be found at
www.fia.com/thefia/Membership/index_membershtml, (2006), (Accessed 1
February)
T. Miller et al, op. cit. p. 10
www.fia.com, (2006), (Accessed 1 February)
www.fia.com/thefia/Court_of_appeal/index.html, (2006), (Accessed 2
February)
K. Foster, Alternative Models for the Regulation of Global Sport , in The
Global Politics of Sport (Allison), op. cit. p. 69
Ibid. p.68
Ibid. p. 69
L. Allison and T Monnington, (2005), Sport, prestige and international
relations in Allison
K. Foster, in Allison, p. 63
C. Archer, International Orgnisations, (1992), Second Edition, Routledge
1992, cited in J Sugden and A Tomlinson, (2005), Not for the Good of the
Game in Allison
J. Sugden and A. Tomlinson in Allison (2005), p. 26
Ibid p. 27
G. Morozov, (1997), The Socialist Conception, International Social Science
Journal 29 no.1: 28-45, cited in J. Sugden and A Tomlinson in Allison (2005)
www.fia.com/global/contacts .html, (2006), (Accessed February 2)
J. Sugden and A. Tomlinson, FIFA and the contest for world football: Who
rules the peoples' game? Polity Press 1998, p. 6
www.fia.com/thefia/statutes/Files/index, (2006), Article 25d (Accessed 2
February)
K. Foster, in Allison (2005), p. 83
Official European Journal, (2005), 13/06/01, Cases COMP/35.163:
COMP/36.638; COMP/36.776. GTR/FIA & others, cited in Foster, in Allison,
p. 83.
K. Foster in Allison, (2005), p. 83
Ibid, p. 84
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid, p. 74
J. Sugdan and A Tomlinson, (2003), Badfellas- FIFA family at war,
Mainstream Publishing, p. 35
A. J. Scholte, Globalisation; a critical introduction (Basingstoke: Palgrave
2000), cited in Foster, in Allison, p. 63
Foster, in Allison, p. 66
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid, p. 67
R. Giulianotti, (1999), Football: A Sociology of the Global Game (Cambridge:
Polity Presss 1999, p. 95), cited in Foster, in Allison (2005), p. 67.
B. Houlihan Sport and Globalisation in Sport and Society: a student
introduction, edited by Houlihan (London, SAGE 2003), cited in Foster in
Allison (2005), p. 67
Ibid.
http://8w.forix.com/love.html, (2005), (for confirmation of the site's validity,
see also http://8w.forix.com/myths.html, (Accessed 29th September)
P. Menard, (2004),The Great Encyclopedia of Formula One, Edition,
Chronosports S. A., 2003, Volume I p. 201
www.fia.com/resources/documents/
548514743_2006_F1_SPORTING_REGULATIONS_pdf, (2006), (Accessed 1
February)
http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=208865&FS=F1, (2006),
(Accessed 1 February)
Foster, in Allison (2005), p. 75
L Allison and T Monningtonin, (2005), in The Global Politics of Sport
(Allison 2005)
Foster, in Allison p. 75
In 2006, a rival series to F1, A1GP appeared. This is not organised by the
FIA, and it is the only racing series where national teams take place instead
of commercial teams, using identical cars
Article 2, cases COMP/35.163, COMP/36.638, COMP/36.776 GTR/FIA &
others, Official European Journal, available at
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/c_169/c_16920010613en0005
0011.pdf. for the structure of FOM, see Appendix 1
Miller, op. cit. p. 68
Foster, in Allison, p. 82
Article 4.2 cases COMP/35.163, COMP/36.638, COMP/36.776 GTR/FIA &
others, Official European Journal, available at
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/c_169/c_16920010613en0005
0011.pdf
Guido Tognoni, (1998), cited in J Sugden and A Tomlinson FIFA and the
contest for World Football - who rules the peoples' game? Polity Press
J. Sugden and A. Tomlinson, (1998), FIFA and the contest for World Football
- who rules the peoples' game? Polity Press, p. 43
A. Giddens, (1984), The constitution of societyPolity Press, p.9
Ibid
J. Sugden and A. Tomlinson, op. cit.
T. Lovell, (2005), Inside the Formula One World of Bernie Ecclestone Metro
Publishing Ltd, p. 227
J. Sugden and A. Tolinson in Allison, p. 27