16/12/2015
NEWS STORY
As Ferrari president Sergio Marchionne stokes up the war of words with Bernie Ecclestone, it appears that the Italian manufacturer might not wield as much power as believed.
An ever present throughout the 66 seasons that have comprised the Formula One World Championship to date, of the 924 Grands Prix held over that time, Ferrari has missed just 16.
Most of those absences were for political reasons, Enzo Ferrari notorious for throwing his toys out of the pram - a practice that, unfortunately, has become common place in the sport.
While it has only missed a handful of races, many have lost count of the number of times the legendary team has threatened to walk away from the sport, the most recent coming earlier this week.
At present, Ferrari is locked in battle with the FIA and Bernie Ecclestone's FOM over a number of issues, and whilst it has the support of fellow manufacturers, especially Mercedes, only the Maranello company has the right to veto the rules, and makes full use of that veto.
Recently, plans to cap the costs of engines were thrown out after Ferrari vetoed the move, a decision described as "small minded" by Max Mosley.
Subsequently, as Bernie Ecclestone seeks to find a cheaper, independent engine for the sport, Ferrari and Mercedes have made it clear they are not happy.
Indeed, following the FIA's decision to give Ecclestone and Jean Todt the mandate to "make recommendations and decisions regarding a number of pressing issues in Formula One such as governance, power units and cost reduction" Ferrari sent a legal letter to the sport's governing body claiming that the mandate contravenes its contracts with the teams.
Ecclestone's reaction was swift.
"The only thing we could do is to ignore what Ferrari have said and carry on with it and say: 'You've got a choice... you can leave or go to arbitration and see what the arbitrators think'," he told the BBC. "I think if we went to arbitration, we'd win easy."
Weeks earlier, after Ferrari used its veto to block the move to cap the cost of engines, the FIA revealed: "Ferrari SpA decided to go against this and exercise the right of veto long recognised under agreements governing F1. In the interest of the championship, the FIA has decided not to legally challenge Ferrari SpA's use of its right of veto."
Indeed, instead it agreed to work with Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault on ways to reduce the cost of engines.
Ferrari's veto, first revealed in 2012 in the prospectus for the planned flotation of F1 on the Singapore stock market, was officially granted by the FIA in 2005, whilst Mosley was still FIA president. Its origins stemmed from when Enzo Ferrari still ruled, the founder of the legendary team calling for the right to prevent his V12 engine from being banned at a time the move was to V10s.
"Enzo Ferrari was the founder, and he was very isolated in Maranello compared to all the British teams," explained Todt recently. "He was alone and you will remember, in the 1980s, Ferrari was the only full car manufacturer of engine and chassis. He was facing private teams, like Williams, Lotus, McLaren and Brabham that were all using the same engine. If I remember it was a Ford Cosworth engine. So he got that (veto) in his discussions to implement."
As Autoweek makes clear, in 2009, during another dispute, this time the planned team budget-cap, Ferrari's lawyer Henry Peter wrote to Pierre de Coninck, the FIA's (then) secretary general for sport, to exercise its veto.
However, de Coninck responded next day pointing out that Ferrari's veto "could only be said to apply to changes to the Sporting or Technical Regulations which would require Ferrari to alter its car."
In other words, and this was whilst Mosley still headed the FIA remember, while the FIA gave up on that particular battle with Ferrari, which was threatening, in league with seven other teams, to set up a rival series, the FIA believed the Italian manufacturer had no right to veto the budget cap regulations.
This, of course, no doubt explains why the FIA recently mentioned the possibility of legally challenging Ferrari's veto.
The veto can only be used if "Ferrari reasonably considers that the new regulations are likely to have a substantial impact on its legitimate interest" and must not be "prejudicial to the traditional values of the Championship and/or the image of the FIA".
In 2009, de Coninck accused Ferrari of breaking the teams' commitment under F1's commercial agreements to "do nothing prejudicial to the image and dignity of Formula One as a high class sport".
"We fail to see how Ferrari's repeated threats to leave the championship could be said to comply with these terms," he wrote.
Not for the first time, it appears that the lawyers are going to be seeing more F1 'action' than the drivers or fans.