MPH: F1 power struggle behind Toto & Susie Wolff 'double agent' probe

So you may have been following the controversy about Toto and Susie Wolff and the FIA’s concern about their respective roles, with the former as an F1 team principal, the latter working directly for Formula One Management (FOM) boss Stefano Domenicali. The implication was that either Susie or Toto – or both – were potentially double agents. Susie could be leaking FOM information to the teams through Toto. Toto could be leaking team information to FOM through Susie.

It was a plot line seemingly hatched in an over-imaginative journalistic mind. For the function of a double agent to have any meaning, the two sides would need to be in conflict. The report in question alleged that the concern had been voiced by ‘an F1 team principal.’

The relevant point here is that it would be an odd thing for an F1 team principal to be concerned about. Because FOM and the teams are almost perfectly aligned; so close it’s almost impossible to see the joins. Together they are making way more money than F1 has ever made before and on virtually every matter of consequence they sing from the same hymn sheet.

If it’s bubbling ill-feeling you are looking for, it’s to be found between FOM and the FIA. Or more specifically between FOM and the FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem. Recall that in February he voiced the opinion that F1 was over-valued, which was not only crucially embarrassing for FOM and potentially financially damaging but also none of his business. The FIA is there to regulate the sport and has leased out the commercial rights, which are currently owned by Liberty Media’s FOM. Liberty Media’s lawyers responded with a stinging letter which was essentially a cease and desist notice.

The point the President was making – albeit in a bull-in-a-china-shop way – was in response to rumours that Liberty was in negotiations to sell its commercial rights to Saudi Arabia for a reputed $20billion. His opinion was that any buyer of F1 should come with a sustainable plan for the health of the sport and not just a load of money. Unfortunately, as the President of the FIA, he was one of the few people not in a position to voice such an opinion – 1) because the FIA is not permitted to interfere in the sport’s commercial matters and 2) precisely because the position of FIA Presidency carries so much weight that any negative opinion could be commercially devastating.

When Liberty purchased the F1 commercial rights in 2017, the whole governance structure of how F1 would be run was revised. The FIA lost significant power in that restructure, but gained additional income. Ben Sulayem inherited this structure and is unhappy both with the FIA’s relative lack of power (it can no longer impose technical regulations unilaterally, for example, but simply acts as a regulator and enforcer of regulations decided by FOM) and the fee it takes from Liberty for its role.

Essentially FOM sees the FIA as a contractor providing a service. Ben Sulayem sees the FIA as the owners of F1 – which it is. But the teams are contracted to FOM, not the FIA. If it came to a split, the FIA would still own the licensing rights to F1, but potentially no teams. Liberty could set up its own championship with a different name but all the existing teams and drivers.