What a breakaway series would mean for F1's future

With a decision imminent on whether the eight 'rebel' manufacturers will be in Formula One in 2010, it would be worthwhile both FOTA and the FIA taking note of a similar split in American open-wheel racing: that between the organising body, CART (known from 2003 as Champ Car), and the Indy Racing League (IRL).

In 1996 Tony George, the owner of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, broke away from CART to set up the IRL. Dissatisfied with CART's governance of the sport, he sought to establish a rival series which would place greater emphasis on close competition, driver safety, and also cutting costs. The split lasted 12 years, and only ended last year when the Champ Car World Series was forced to file for bankruptcy.

Clearly there are some differences between the present crisis and the CART/IRL split. Firstly, and most obviously, the FOTA teams want to avoid cost-cutting measures rather than to implement them, as was George's intention with the IRL. It is also worth noting that it would be the 'rebel' F1 series - not the officially sanctioned one - which would retain most of the established constructors and drivers. One of the reasons that the IRL struggled to attract interest at first was because it lacked many of the top IndyCar drivers, a problem that a rebel F1 series is unlikely to share.

But there are also lessons that can be learned from America. The CART/IRL split was extremely acrimonious, and not easily resolved. The eventual reunification in 2008 was the result not of a rapprochement but of a protracted war, which alienated sponsors and ultimately ended in the effective destruction of one of the combatants. Worse still, the fanbase was divided. Even since reunification, the present IndyCar series has struggled to re-establish itself as the premier US racing category, as fans have turned increasingly to NASCAR. The message is clear: American open-wheel racing has been tarnished, if not forever, then certainly for the foreseeable future.

What does this mean for Formula One? For a start, if there is a split, it seems likely that there will be difficulties in securing broadcasting contracts for both sides. Naturally, the FIA-sanctioned F1 will have the advantage of being the 'official' series, and having agreements in place with Formula One Management, whereas the rebels face the immediate prospect of being sued by Bernie Ecclestone for breach of contract. But there are rumours that Carmelo Ezpeleta, the commercial rights holder in MotoGP, is interested in assisting a rebel F1 series.

In the longer term, however, it will be the series that attracts the big name drivers and teams that will win over the fans, and this is where a FOTA championship is likely to have the upper hand. Ultimately, the fans are everything, since without good television ratings, the value set upon the broadcasting rights will be reduced, and the financial viability of the series will come under threat. It is hard to imagine two championships co-existing alongside one another for long. Sooner or later, one of them must collapse, and when it does, it will be terminal.

One can only hope that a resolution to the crisis can be reached before the FIA publishes its list of successful entrants for 2010 tomorrow. FOTA's position has been weakened by Force India's defection, but not substantially. If the FIA are to exclude the remaining FOTA members, they must take a gamble on as many as 11 new teams, whose record in F1 is untested. Nor, it seems, would those teams have enough time to construct a car in time for the start of the 2010 season, since it takes around 12 months to design and build a car from scratch, unless some sort of mentoring or partnership scheme were introduced. FOTA, by contrast, have the facilities, resources and expertise already in place and ready to go.

If it does come to a split, it is the credibility of the official series, rather than that of the rebels, which is most in doubt.