Here's a message for Charlie: We need you.

Last Tuesday, Michael Masi left F1's governing body, the FIA, to spend more time with his family in Australia and pursue other goals. Regardless of the side that you fell in Abu Dhabi 2021, you will probably have an opinion on Masi, and it will likely be strong. While I don't agree with every decision he made, I feel for Michael as the one who had to fill Charlie Whiting's impossibly large shoes.

Charlie died suddenly on the eve of the 2019 Formula One season. While those who knew him felt a considerable gap emerge in their lives, his untimely passing left an equally large void within the FIA - and it still hasn't recovered.

Whiting's transparency and respect defined him as a man and a race director. Two crucial qualities as the referee of a competitive, complex, and constantly changing sport.

During the USA Grand Prix 2017, Max Verstappen was given a penalty immediately after the race for cutting a corner, which attracted much controversy. On the Thursday following the race, Charlie held a press conference in which he talked the world's media through decision-making alongside different camera angles. He explained the wording of the rules, and the case was closed as everyone had an answer.

“This clarity stopped controversy lingering.”

This clarity stopped controversy lingering.

The respect between Charlie, the drivers and the teams was clear for all to see. On YouTube, you can see some behind-the-scenes of drivers' briefings in which Charlie's strong relationship with racing drivers is evident.

These are qualities lacking within the current FIA format. Last week, at the Austrian Grand Prix, Max Verstappen said something interesting.

"I don't think it necessarily depends on (having) a single race director. I think it's more about working with the drivers rather than standing your ground and being stubborn".

Even Verstappen, who seems to benefit most from the opacity of the FIA as a driver who pushes the rules beyond the limit more than most, believes that the FAA requires changes.

I read a great article by Matt Kew on Autosport in which he compared the FIA since Abu Dhabi to the Conservative party in the UK since party gate. The solution seems to be bringing a new face rather than changing the underlying issues.

The new face of the FIA, Mohammed Ben Sulayem (MBS), became the president seven months ago. Since then, he seems to have thrown his political weight around in F1 substantially compared to his predecessor Jean Todt. But he seems to have been doing so in a weird way.

You can respect his drive to push for all rules to be followed to the letter to avoid a repeat of Abu Dhabi 2021. Yet, he seems to focus on rules that were never a pressing issue.

The whole pants and piercings malarkey of the first few races seemed and was bizarre when we have Sebastian Vettel literally walking out of drivers' briefings in frustration of racing rules such as track limits and forcing other drivers off the track still being debated.

The British Grand Prix last fortnight was one of the season's best races. However, some of the racing standards of Sergio Pérez and Max Verstappen raised questions. Between them, they were guilty of cutting corners to overtake and forcing other drivers off the track. Neither were penalised, and it left fans and drivers alike scratching their heads.

Just a week later, the Austrian Grand Prix would be an excellent time for the race director to explain why things were done to allow everyone to move on. However, neither the race director nor the stewards from Silverstone were present in Austria. While this allows for people to rest, it leads to no accountability.

“The decisions do not need to be perfect, but there needs to be consistency.”

This leaves drivers and fans in the dark as to where the line can be drawn. It's as though the drivers have to learn the rules of the sport as the weekend goes on, which is frankly ridiculous. The decisions do not need to be perfect, but there needs to be consistency.

Of course, times have changed. Formula One has become more popular, so the pressure has increased on those making key decisions during and after the race. But it is clear more than ever that F1 needs a Charlie Whiting figure to steer the ship in a direction that doesn't change weekly. This needs sorting out because people will quickly move on if nobody can get their heads around the game's rules.

The FIA said that Sebastian Vettel did not behave like a role model for walking out of the drivers' briefing, which is plainly ridiculous. Alongside Lewis Hamilton, Seb is a true champion on and off the track, genuinely looking to leave the world in a better place as a result of his platform.

There is also no nonsense with Seb, he respects others and commands respect, and he knows what he's talking about, given his current job. So perhaps the best thing that could happen to F1 is Seb joining the FIA.

“I'm putting Sebastian Vettel forward as the new FIA president.”

I don't know when he will retire, and he might not know either. But when the four-time champion does hang up his helmet, I'm putting Sebastian Vettel forward as the new FIA president.

Whether Seb’s presidency will come in time, I don't know. But I do know that the world doesn't deserve Sebastian Vettel, so while he is here, savour it. And if he can fix F1, even better.

Pants and Jewellery - a symbol of the F1-FIA split? (2 of 2)

The first part of this article was about F1's success in America. So it feels silly that one of the weekend's biggest stories was a four-time champion wearing boxers over his race suit and F1's biggest name wearing three watches to a press conference.

Since F1's governing body, the FIA, had a bit of a whoopsy at the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix last year, it has changed two of the key people in the organisation - the president and the race director.

The presidential change was planned, swapping a retiring Jean Todt for a Motorsport UK backed Mohammed Ben Sulayem (MBS). The race director was less planned, swapping the controversial Michael Masi for Niels Wittich and Eduardo Freitas, the two of whom will alternate each weekend.

“The Abu Dhabi controversy is critical here”

The Abu Dhabi controversy is critical here because the F1 world, in the majority, felt that the FIA had stood by their decision to not follow its own rules and procedures.

Back in Miami, we heard that the FIA had begun enforcing the rule that disallows the wearing of jewellery or non-fireproof underwear while driving the car.

On the pants front, enforcing the rules had ruffled some feathers with key drivers, including Sebastian Vettel. We saw him ironically wearing boxers on top of his overalls at the start of Friday practice in Miami. I've just watched him holding his own on BBC's Question Time - what a difference a week makes.

“He has been given a two-race grace period for that”

The jewellery battle seems to be a bit trickier. Pierre Gasly wears a religious pendant during races, Kevin Magnessun wears his wedding ring, and Lewis Hamilton wears earrings and has a piercing in his nose. While Hamilton took out his earrings, the nose piercing remained. It seems that he needs a minor surgery to get that removed. So he has been given a two-race grace period for that.

The question is, will he book the op?

Going by the way Hamilton arrived at the drivers press conference, you wouldn't be surprised if, come Monaco, we are talking piercings again.

The seven-time world champion arrived, donning three watches, seven neckless and eight rings. You would be right if you thought Lewis was trying to make a point.

“You might argue that it seemed negotiable when F1 remained in Saudi Arabia”

It seems odd for the FIA to annoy the two most decorated drivers on the grid for a little thing like this. Yes, safety is non-negotiable. But you might argue that it seemed negotiable when F1 remained in Saudi Arabia following nearby missile strikes.

The offers from Hamilton and Magnessun to sign waivers to cover the FIA have been rejected too. So it's not for legal reasons that the FIA has this stance.

President MBS is said to be pushing hard for the ruling to be applied, with his reasoning being that those at the top should set a good example. F1 is the biggest motorsport in the world. However, other categories allow jewellery to be worn, and some of Lewis Hamilton's most iconic images have been seen him emerge from the car wearing his nose piercing.

Is it, as Sebastian Vettel suggested, personal on Lewis Hamilton? Maybe. Perhaps that explains why Lewis is so annoyed by this situation. From the exterior seems an unusual area of the sport about which to have an argument.

I prefer to assume the best in people. This means that the FIA must now be applying every rule without question so that they don't have another Abu Dhabi 2021. While F1 could have suffered heavily from the conclusion to last season, the FIA was the organisation that received most of the backlash - and it didn't help itself by being slow to respond.

“There is growing discontent and a disconnect between F1 and the FIA”

This brings me to the crux of the issue. There is growing discontent and a disconnect between F1 and the FIA.

In recent weeks, the FIA has asked F1 for a more significant sum of money to deliver more sprint race weekends in the seasons to come. Reports suggest that this didn't go down well at all. Especially as F1 provides the FIA with approximately half of its income already.

This dispute over money and sprint races seem to have spilt out into pants and piercings, creating a pattern of F1 being celebrated as a global success. At the same time, the FIA receives continued lousy press.

The issue is that they need one another. The FIA needs F1 financially and for relevance, while F1 needs referees to run the sport.

Let's not forget, as silly as it sounds, the FIA have the power to stop Lewis Hamilton from racing in Monaco if he is still wearing a piercing. That would hurt F1 as well as Hamilton and Mercedes.

The alternative to the FIA? There isn't, really. The good news is that we are not going to see a breakaway series because teams would be mad to leave F1 just as it's becoming profitable. In fact, heavyweights Andretti Racing are looking to join the party, so the dynamic may yet swing a different direction.

Watch this space, and leave the space below to let me know what you think.

BREAKING: America for F1? - Here’s how Formula 1’s tectonic plates are moving (1 of 2)

Last weekend‘s Miami Grand Prix was a tremendous success. However, there is more than meets the eye. Celebrities, sold-out grandstands, pants and jewellery were the talk of the weekend. On the surface, these are silly topics. However, they signify tectonic plates move in the F1 world.

BREAKING: America for F1?

F1 in the United States. It’s a topic that I am invested in a little more than most because I studied it for my dissertation. Since my dissertation, which I wrote in 2021, Formula One has exploded in the States and continues to expand.

The Miami Grand Prix, with the Las Vegas Grand Prix scheduled for next year, symbolised the arrival of F1 in the American mainstream. Just shy of 250,000 attended the event over the weekend, which saw the track wrap around the Miami Dolphins American Football stadium.

The Super Bowl got 99.2 million US TV viewers and F1, 2.6 million for context. So there is more room for growth. That said, the Dolphins get 65,000 turn up when they fill the stadium for a football game. So commercially, the stadium owner Stephen Ross won’t be short of a bob or two with F1 rocking up for the next decade.

“Stefano Domenicali will have had a few phone calls on Monday morning”

The thing is, Ross isn’t the only American Football franchise owner in the United States. Others will be looking on. Especially if they can charge hundreds if not thousands for tickets. The success of Las Vagas in 2023 will be defining. Still, it’s safe to say that Stefano Domenicali will have had a few phone calls on Monday morning asking for a chat about F1 coming to a new part of America.

There is no doubt then that F1 is booming in the United States like never before. But the sport needs to be careful. It is equally vital that F1 maintains its global fanbase.

The Americas North, Central and South seem covered by three US races, Canada, Mexico and Brazil. Although, you might argue another South American race would be good in a region that has historically embraced F1. Perhaps Chile - we know Santiago welcomed Formula E.

Asia and Oceania is a market that F1, particularly under Bernie Ecclestone, targeted for a while. We still have Singapore, Japan and Australia - races that F1 needs to stay on the calendar. I wonder whether the Asian market may be left behind, despite it being arguably as commercially important as the US. Toto Wolff has made comments suggesting that he feels similarly.”

The gaping hole on the F1 schedule is, of course, Africa”

The gaping hole on the F1 schedule is, of course, Africa. It’s the continent set for the most growth in the next century, and it has an audience interested in F1. South Africa is an obvious destination, but ideally, more races would occur. I can imagine Nigeria being an incredible atmosphere for a race.

Europe is the traditional heartland and will more than likely remain engaged, with drivers, teams and legendary tracks all heralding from that neck of the woods. However, if F1 is going to expand globally, it will need to drop some races in Europe.

“Monaco is under threat as a race”

The most troubling thing here is that Monaco is under threat as a race. The streets of Monte Carlo are part of the fabric of F1; we need a solution to ensure it remains. The two obvious ones are that Monaco pays more than the discounted fee that it currently does for a Grand Prix (it's the only one that doesn't) or widens the track to allow better racing. Although, the latter is a logistical nightmare. You could make the cars smaller and lighter, akin to the early 2000s. Yet that doesn’t seem likely with heavy hybrid power units and chassis the size of boats the order of the decade.

As F1’s success continues, the decisions made by Liberty Media will become ever-pertinent. We keep seeing long, multi-year contracts with countries. Perhaps, the best decision is to have core races in each continent that remain on the calendar but to rotate all of these other brilliant races year by year.

This would keep things exciting and engaging, balancing F1’s value without over-saturating the audience with too much of a good thing.

Let me know what races you think should stay on the calendar every season.

Part 2 coming soon.

He's back! - How somebody posting a photo from the Grand Canyon nearly broke the internet

If you hadn't heard, the Abu Dhabi Grand at the end of last year's enthralling F1 season was a little bit controversial. Lewis Hamilton was dominant. However, Max Verstappen stole the race and the championship on the final lap thanks to some weird decisions from race control. 

Whatever your opinion - check Twitter, there are many - Lewis Hamilton was left heartbroken and "disillusioned". He had lost the championship that would elevate him to undisputed 'greatest of all time' status through no fault of his own. The other elephant in the room was that the FIA needed to ensure that never such a thing would happen again. 

Hamilton's team, Mercedes, protested the race result - a protest rejected by the FIA. Mercedes then appealed this before retracting the appeal, given that it knew the FIA would be the ones "marking its own homework," and there isn't much satisfaction in winning a championship in court. Mercedes did say, though, that the FIA needed to make changes.

The intriguing thing throughout all of this was the complete silence from Lewis Hamilton. He only spoke briefly after the race to congratulate Verstappen. He appeared in public twice to be knighted and celebrate Mercedes' team championship win. 

Silence is powerful.

The muteness accompanied by rumours of retirement has been the biggest talking point in the F1 community since then. The driver, who is arguably bigger than F1, may have been pushed away by the sport that he loves and to which he has given everything. 

But then, on Saturday evening, up pops Lewis on Instagram and Twitter, posting a photo of him turning and smiling at the camera in a desert. The caption: "I've been gone. Now I'm back!".

To say that this post caused a stir would be an understatement. It was the trending topic on Twitter, it made a Sky News bulletin, and t received more interaction than Max Verstappen's world championship celebration post. Yes, it's all a bit silly. But what does this all mean?

On the surface, it appears that Lewis Hamilton is not retiring, which is great news for Formula One, British sport and the world in general. You want the best in the world doing what they are the best at - otherwise, it feels a little bit like a waste.

Below the surface will be more intriguing. Lewis was said to have needed some assurances from the FIA before committing to another season in F1. So what deal has been agreed? 

Firstly, changes would need to be made in the FIA, as we have already said - this is a world-class sport and cannot be run by primarily ammeters. Many people call for Michael Masi, the race director, to be sacked, but I don't think that is helpful. As obtuse as he was immediately after the race in Abu Dhabi, he was put under extreme pressure and needs more support. 

Secondly, I suspect Lewis, like many, would have been calling for the laws of racing to be made clear and consistent. Last season, Max was over the limit and unpunished on multiple occasions. For drivers' safety and the fans' understanding, this needs to be addressed, and Lewis has the bargaining power to have that impact. 

Finally, he may have used his bargaining power to promote the long term goals of Lewis in the sport. F1 is elitist. Despite the 'we race as one' messages, it needs to do more for sustainability and be more accessible for competitors of all backgrounds. I wonder whether Lewis has encouraged a more effective strategy in this direction. 

Let me be clear. Lewis' silence was not simply a calculated move to change the sport. He was hurt, so taking time away from the public eye will have been extremely healthy and necessary after that draining season. The way that Lewis conducts himself and speaks this season will be fascinating. And his pursuit of title number 8, which he understandably feels should be his, will be enthralling to watch.

I am buzzing for F1 2022, and I hope you are too. Join us on AJontheLine for every twist and turn.

Quality vs Quantity: Are we watching the Premier League and Formula One reach their limit?

A few months ago, I wondered aloud whether holding major sporting events like the Olympics and World Cup on a more regular basis would be a good idea. I decided that other than it working nicely from a commercial perspective, it was a bad idea. 

News stories floating around during this festive period have pointed towards two of the most talked-about sports in recent weeks - at least in the UK - reaching their limits. What’s going on, what are the potential ramifications, and how do I see it ending?

Good news! COVID-19 might save the Premier League from itself

It’s ironic that in a week that has heard Premier League managers complain of the intense schedule for players, Manchester United played their first game in sixteen days. English football finds itself in a difficult position. Teams are committed to league games, the two domestic cups and European club competitions (between which players might play for their country). Annoyingly, COVID outbreaks mean that clubs cannot play due to a lack of players. 

English football is unusual in Europe’s top leagues in two ways: it has no winter break and still has two domestic cup competitions. Yes, it’s great to watch loads of games, but if the games cannot be played, delaying them will undoubtedly lead to further flooding downstream. Klopp and his Manchester City rival, Pep Guardiola, have used the same word to describe the impact of the high workload players face. Guardiola says it’ll ‘kill the players’, and Klopp says it’ll ’kill the beautiful game’. Either way, the top league in world football is at a crossroads and must make changes to continue its success. 

You may scoff at this. Football players are paid extraordinary amounts and have world-leading medical science on their side. True. But they are human, and we all need breaks. While COVID outbreaks this winter will probably cause issues later in this season’s schedule. Hopefully, the problems will be so much so that it leads to positive change to help sustain the Premier League’s position as number one globally.

It’s not just the superstars that suffer

COVID-19 has meant that F1 has done 39 races in 18 months, which is a lot. Once again, the pandemic has highlighted issues in the sustainability of the sporting setup.

Autosport published a fascinating article last week that gave an insiders’ perspective from an anonymous mechanic in F1, speaking of the mental and physical challenges faced by team members during a gruelling season on the road. F1’s desire to increase the number of races on its calendar and increase competition through cost caps has led to team members with the most demanding jobs working more without getting much more in return. 

The result is that more team members than ever are giving up on the sport that they love. Like the Premier League, F1 is considered the pinnacle of motorsport and thus, attracts the best in the business, leading to more greatness. If the demands of the sport start to drive the best in the world away, these competitions may find themselves in a dangerous and vicious circle. 

Are changes coming?

The first episode of Netflix’s Drive to Survive is named ‘Cash is King’. That might help give us an answer to the above question. The leaders of a sport will make decisions based on money because they are businesses. Call me a pessimist, but it’s true. There must be a way in which positive changes can come. For example, intelligent decision-making could allow for more sporting events to lead to more employment, with greater rotation of people avoiding widespread burnout.

I don’t claim to have all of the answers, but as long as these leagues are considered the best and have the best people involved, they will continue down this path of quantity. As soon as the quality starts walking away, no longer wanting to play, that is when changes will come. But by then, it may be too late. The people that made the league what it was are no longer there. 

The European Super League may not have been as far-fetched as it initially sounded.

Sustainability in sport is vital for a whole host of reasons. It is also crucial that we push the limits and change sports to make them even better - that is what all great entertainment businesses must do. However, if we can learn anything from the last two years, it is this: sports must know their limits or risk losing it all. And that’s easier said than done.

Happy New Year from everyone at AJontheLine.

Should the Olympics and World Cup take place more often?

Gary Lineker recently tweeted an interesting thought that many have probably had a few times during the summer of an even year (unless there's a pandemic). Should the Olympics and Football World Cup take place on a more frequent basis? 

Utilitarianism is the idea that since humans gain happiness from having certain things, increasing that utility would lead to greater happiness. In our case, Lineker seems to apply this logic to say that since we all seem to enjoy World Cups and Olympic Games, we will surely be better off for having more of these events. While one national treasure might think this, I thought I should consider it from a few different perspectives. Here are my results.

Athletes 

Surely, this is a shut and closed case - players want to play. 

On the one hand, yes. These major sporting events are the most significant moments in athletes' careers. To have more opportunities to compete on the world stage is certainly an attractive opportunity. If an athlete doesn't win or has an injury one year, they don't have to wait as long to have another bite of the cherry. It also means that there is a higher chance of seeing a team or individual at their peak. Many athletes in the Olympics make most of their money through the Olympics, meaning that more Games will likely increase athletes' income.

On the other hand, you have to consider the well-being of athletes. They'll be knackered if they compete throughout the year for their clubs and then for their countries in the summer. Yes, I know it's their job, and they get paid well to be trained for these events, but everyone needs a break and some time with their family.

I sense then that opinions of athletes will be divided. If that is the case, you may have a situation where some athletes don't compete in certain years. Would that take away from the majesty of the events? Potentially. 

Clubs

This is an easier one. We learned more about what clubs really wanted when some of the biggest ones tried to break away with the European Super League. The players they employ are their assets; why would they want them to risk injury while playing for their country in major tournaments? They wouldn’t. I suspect it would be a similar situation for most sports clubs. 

I imagine, also, that for sports without clubs, other competitions, such as the Athletics world championships, will likely oppose the idea that the Olympics may take priority.

Governments 

Countries host major sporting events to promote the nation in the form of soft diplomacy. More of these events mean that more countries can tell the world how great they are and invite them to visit. Naturally, governments will be onboard. 

Except will they? Major sporting events are costly to put on, and they are not always politically popular within the country. The Olympics cost Japan an estimated $15.4 billion. This sort of spending by hosts often results in taxes increasing alongside debt to compensate. 

Major sports events are therefore controversial from a political perspective. In a world where the narrative is perhaps more important than the numbers, possibly more governments would be up for the idea.

Sports fans

I suppose that the general feeling among sports fans will be that of Gary Lineker’s - the more, the merrier. 

However, we will never know the actual perspective of fans until the frequency of major events is increased, by which point, it’ll probably be too late. The biggest issue will be whether events feel as special as they do now. Fan satisfaction will be directly proportional to athlete involvement. If the superstars don’t turn up, neither will spectators. I can also imagine that, due to the expense, the fans that travel to every tournament will be less able to afford to travel the world as frequently. If the fans don’t go to the stadiums, the profits for the host nation will be less handsome. But does the high interest in Tokyo 2020 on television, despite a lack of capacity crowds, show that fans may still be interested in global sporting events with fewer live fans? Maybe. I think it would be a considerable risk.

Football-wise, I think we are set with a World Cup and then a Continental Cup every two years, but I could see another Olympic Games being a success. A Winter Olympics might be good, where winter sports are competed instead. Oh, wait… 

My Verdict

I believe that the way things are is perfectly fine. These major sporting events are special, and I don’t see a reason to change that. What I do think, though, is that more sports being added to the Olympics and increasing the length of the Games would bring even more interest. Naturally, I am drawn to motorsport being added, with track racing in the summer and rallying in the winter. I also don’t know why Cricket, American Football or Squash aren’t part of the schedule either. What else am I missing?

Also, you’ve got the Commonwealth Games, which are essentially a semi Olympics, so adding more would be frankly mad.

Never mind all of that, though. It’s easy to point out the flaws. The Olympic Games left us wanting more, and that’s a true sign of a successful summer in Tokyo. 

Leave a comment below to let me know what you think - should we have more frequent Olympic Games and World Cups?