Bernie Ecclestone: Drivers correct about F1's 'obsolete' governance

Lars Baron/Getty Images

Bernie Ecclestone has written back to F1's drivers to agree with their assessment the sport's decision-making process is "obsolete and ill-structured".

On Wednesday the Grand Prix Drivers' Association (GPDA) took aim at recent rule changes and the way the sport is run in an open letter "to Formula One's stakeholders, followers and fans". It called for a clear "master plan" for the future in both short- and long-term decisions but did not outline any clear proposals.

The GPDA letter followed the debacle around F1's new qualifying format at the Australian Grand Prix, which had been pushed through by the decision-making F1 Commission and Strategy Group despite opposition from drivers. After a farcical debut the system is set to be tweaked for the next race in Bahrain.

As revealed by the BBC, Ecclestone has written back to the drivers to agree with the main point that the governance of Formula One needs restructuring. The F1 boss calls on drivers to come back to him with ideas about how to make improvements as "it is better to think before you wish".

The response takes a bizarre and slightly comical turn in the final paragraph when Ecclestone appears to correct the grammar of a sentence in the original GPDA letter to him.

Ecclestone's letter to the GPDA in full:

Dear Gentlemen,

I am not sure if this is the right description. It is not always easy to agree with you but you are correct in stating that the decision making process in the sport is obsolete and ill structured.

We must as you have stated urge the owners and all stakeholders of Formula One to consider restructuring its own governance.

It is easy to analyse what is wrong so why not think and come back on this. At least it is better to think before you wish.

I have been in Formula One for nearly fifty years in an active role and another eighteen involved in some way. You state that every individual acts with the very best intentions. I am not sure if this is a misprint. If not, it should read "with their very best intentions".

Best wishes,