The Fia And The Established Sporting Governing Bodies Management Essay

For assignment help please contact

at help@hndassignmenthelp.co.uk or hndassignmenthelp@gmail.com

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:

 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