A subject that does not often come on the table when tackling double agendas or politics that shaped the sport, it has to be the mid-1990s TV broadcasting rights case handled by the European Commission (EUC), so here’s a little summary and context on the topic.

Back in July 1994, the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) or the world governing body notified the EUC of a change in its regulations along with an agreement signed with International Sportsworld Communications Ltd. (ISC) relating to the broadcasting rights of certain FIA Championships and International Series with the exception of Formula One, negotiated on a different and separate bill with Formula One Administration Ltd. (FOA).

At the time, it’s safe to say it went under the radar for the EUC but the changes were major and evolved from 1994 onwards. Overall, it comprised changes to the Statutes and its governance system, the International Sporting Code (the Code) which lays down the rules for the organization and conduct of motorsport events at international level, and along the way a major update to the General Prescriptions applicable to all FIA Championships, Challenges, Trophies, and Cups (the Championships), the regulations of those Championships and finally the FIA Yearbook and Bulletins.

In detail but not exhaustive, the changes required any person wishing to be eligible to participate in the Championships to hold a specific type of license and pay an appropriate fee issued only by a registered National Sporting Authority (ASN).

That all international competitions be registered on the international sporting calendar which previously was at the discretion of the FIA and that failure to do so would result in the organizer or entrant’s licences being withdrawn, therefore rendering those ineligible to accomplish business or compete at a global level as suspended by their respective ASN.

That followed on lesser statutes than just FIA Championships and applicable from 1997 onwards, including International Series of the likes of the BPR Global GT Series for instance, imposing along the way an approval system at the discretion of the FIA which would impose a monopoly on the broadcasting rights ownership and therefore fees and revenues.

The above impacted all kinds of disciplines, often overlooked were rallying, and truck racing and included the likes of the Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterchaft (DTM), along with a myriad of others if to give you an insight into the implications of such agreements.

At Formula One level, and on separate terms but equal timeline, the Concorde agreement was being renegotiated by FIA, FOA (to become Formula One Management (FOM)) and ISC, pushing a major update as well on DOs and DONTs granted to the teams in regard to the way the championship, its rights, trademarks and broadcasting rights would be handled along with its revenues of course. This concerned and included Formula 3000 at the time as well and would last for the next 14 years by the time it was signed in 1995. It also preceded the 100-year lease that would be signed later on by the FIA. A path that had been taken almost a decade before by the governing body in regard to Formula One and its commercial affairs.

Interestingly, the FIA was and remains to this day a non-profit making association with members being the ASNs or your national sporting authority. The governing body at the time was chaired by Max Rufus Mosley (Max) while ISC was back then a company of Charles Bernard Ecclestone (Bernie) and the FOA (FOM by 1998) as well.

The background shows that Max and Bernie go a long way back and that even under the previous Ballestre FIA presidency, Bernie was already by 1987 the VP for promotional affairs and Max a member of the Senate. A possible insight into previous dealings but other key figures such as Piccinini a director of Ferrari was also one of those 8 Senate members at the time, which possibly clarifies previous reasoning to veto rights…

Back to broadcasting rights, in June 2000 the EUC notified the FIA of the conflict of interest it had got its hands into and considering the European laws on fair competition. That said notification and jurisprudence came from three complaints originally lodged between 1997 and 1998.

First was AE TV Cooperation GmbH or the German company responsible for broadcasting the Europeans Truck Racing Cup back before the above changes came into play, which was forced out of business due to the fees escalating to levels never seen before FIA-ISC and which rendered them unsustainable for the company.

Second was the more well-known GTR Organisation or the company behind the BPR Global Endurance GT Series run by the likes of Jürgen Barth, Patrick Peter, and Stefan Ratel. And for the last, it remains unknown publicly.

While the three above complaints were lodged to the EUC, they were all withdrawn and cases closed without a specific investigation, which we understand was the result of private settlements being arranged by ISC or Bernie so to speak. And yet it was enough to raise eyebrows and start an official investigation at the time.

Effectively, the FIA and ISC had forced out of business AE TV, GTR Organisation, and its BPR Series along with others. Established entities of the likes of AE TVare no longer able to market the championships due to fees being unsustainable. The DTM in Germany which had evolved in the International Touring Car Championship under the FIA banner by 1996 through its promoter ITR had fallen out for multiple reasons all relating to costs and it is safe to say that the concessions and revenues monopoly enforced by ISC and FIA had played a key part in its demise as the promotion which involved broadcasting a major championship at international level couldn’t be achieved by the promoter at a level which offered the visibility for its shareholders, and that was the common aspect of the problem.

The conflict of interest was clear as those FIA-ISC agreements were by then using the regulatory powers of the governing body to block promoters from organizing races that competed with the events promoted and organized solely by the FIA while equally using a dominant position in regards to the issuance and control of the broadcasting rights. An analogy was also found at the time in the FIA-FOA agreement by certain closes of the Concorde agreement along a major one in direct conflict with the European Commission Treaty as the agreement essentially prevented circuits from signing and hosting any other series comparable to Formula One through direct repercussions through broadcasting fees and penalties, basically a case of monopoly for excessive periods.

The intricacy of that story is that it took place over multiple years and that while the investigation took place, the FIA and EUC did update either their own regulations or enquired about those, all that led to major changes and a complete redistribution of those agreements but also of the controls of the companies involved while it also started major investigations for the likes of Bernie at domestic levels.

Damage was made, series, championships killed or the powers redistributed by that mechanism, understand taken over in-house. All that playing for the greater good of Formula One, that is evidence but also and to some extent for promoters. Stephane Ratel is the prime example as in 1997 he would side with the FIA, promoting the FIA-GT through his eponymous company Stephane Ratel Organisation (SRO). On the other hand, as the major Championships collapsed, it pushed the manufacturer’s budget to different programs, hence Mercedes switching from ITC to FIA-GT in 1997 as a primary example of the above.

David Richards would by 2000 take over ISC and concentrate on the promotion of the FIA World Rally Championship by developing the audience through the advent of the World Rally Car, by then in full swing.

And on 28th of July 2000, with the signing of the 100-year lease by the FIA of the Formula One promoting rights to FOM and its SLEC holding, it would set the path for the development we saw along and up to this day. But as written in one of the sources, a 100-year deal for a multiple of less than one times FOM’s 1998 revenues ($404M), that must have been a very good deal for its shareholders!

Yet, most of what was listed in the above article was by that time waived and or amended to get the letter through the post, the broadcasting rights were settled on FIA Championships only and with no power for the FIA to intervene at lesser levels or to make a competition of it, meaning that fees would be set from the beginning and duration of the contracts, in a way that story set the path for a governing body that only regulates the technical side and reflects in most of the deals that happened from then on.

What a deal and what a story, thanks to Bernie and Max.