Ecclestone settles case but future role uncertain

For a sport that relishes the rule book it was perhaps fitting that Bernie Ecclestone shrugged off the court case that has been hanging over him through a little-known legal loophole in German law known as Paragraph 153a.

The settlement cost €75 million and allows the Formula One chief executive to move on from the threat of prosecution with the trial being officially abandoned, but it is by no means case closed in terms of the debate over his future .

With the legal sword of Damocles lifted, Ecclestone was keen to return to the business he has pursued for four decades.

But it is the day job that is the new problem and which may yet mean CVC, the private equity firm that controls the sport, still opt to make changes at the top.

These are turbulent times for F1; there has been considerable debate and dissatisfaction with the way the sport is performing and which fall to Ecclestone to solve.

In June Luca di Montezemolo, the president of Ferrari, wrote to him to express “worries” that F1 was neglecting fans, particularly in attracting a younger audience and failing to maintain the interest of sponsors. He went on to suggest a meeting of Formula One management, teams, partners, media, promoters and even social media organisations to discuss the future.

His concern reflects widespread feelings across F1. Audience viewing figures are down a reported 30% over five years, although interestingly, the decrease is not reflected in the UK audience which Mercedes executive director Toto Wolff has confirmed is growing. Poor showings The broader trend can be seen in race day attendances, which are also down. Bumper crowds at Silverstone and in Austria this year were offset by poor showings elsewhere, with Hockenheim in Germany causing considerable concern in the paddock.

This is a complex issue to resolve. Sponsors want as large an audience as possible but CVC are in the business of making money and rights fees for races are extraordinarily high, leading to high ticket prices.

Equally, sales of TV rights generate the lion’s share of income but increasingly this is from pay-to-view outlets which attract fewer viewers. The teams enjoy the TV money (there were no objections from them to Sky’s deal in the UK) but these decreases remain an issue. In the long term fewer viewers makes car sponsorship less attractive and in the short term fewer tickets sales directly affects their bottom line.

When asked about the declining figures Ecclestone said: “It matters, but when you say it is falling, it is changing”, but he remained uninterested in pursuing new social media outlets, insisting F1 did not need to adapt to new media.

“No. We’re commercial ... If they find people to pay us [to do that] then I will be happy,” he told Autosport.

Disagreement

In contrast, Wolff has publicly expressed his disagreement, arguing “the model does not work yet, as you cannot monetise it, but I can tell each of my sponsors that the audience seeing his logo is growing even though TV figures are down.”

Then there is that audience itself. Fans are already outraged by the effort to ensure the season goes to the wire by awarding double points for the final race and are at the sharp end for shelling out on tickets. All of which Ecclestone must now address, while CVC consider whether he is still the best man do so.

"Don't ever make the mistake of underestimating Bernie," said Niki Lauda after Ecclestone was involved in another court case in 2004 and who welcomed the conclusion of this case by saying: "If Bernie stops, it would have been a disaster for Formula One. He has built everything up over three decades and is the only one who knows everything – the business, the details of the teams. Everything is in his head".

Whether a new head is needed is a decision out of the hands of this most hands-on of operators. – Guardian Service