BUXTON: FIA doth protest too much

Above: FIA president Jean Todt with the F1 World Champion's trophy.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

So is quoted the 16th president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. Or perhaps it was Mark Twain. History seems to have omitted to faithfully record who precisely it was that first uttered this immortal line, but it seems to have its root in the scriptures, and the Proverbs of Solomon.

"Even a fool, when he holds his peace, is counted wise: and he that shuts his lips is esteemed a man of understanding."

With social media providing us with the means to immediately comment on any given topic to a global stage, perhaps never has the old maxim held more truth. Nor the principled teachings of my mother, and I'm sure yours too, to engage one's brain before engaging one's tongue.

Twenty nine presidents down the line, what would the great Lincoln make of the current officeholder's oft acerbic quick-draw style of public political discourse, his thoughts distilled into 140 pointed characters in the wee hours of the morning?

It's perhaps worthy of note that the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln's most famous speech and enduring epitaph, was just 271 words in length – 1,450 characters, spaces and punctuation included. Or 10 tweets.

Politics, so those versed in the artistry of the game are aware, is often more about that which isn't said than that which is. For one cannot lose a fight in which one fails to engage. Just as a boxer's greatest moment of potential weakness comes when he opens up his body to himself to swing a punch, so too do politicians leave themselves open when they step onto the front foot and attack.

The political observer in me thus found it fascinating that the presidents of the nation to whom I broadcast and the sport in which I ply my trade both came out swinging this week, inadvertently leaving themselves open to ludicrously easy shots.

As Donald Trump lambasted leaks he believed to have come from the intelligence community about supposed chaos and conflicts within his staff and his office, his point of offense left a glaring hole. For in decrying the leaks themselves rather than the assertions they were making, he inadvertently and tacitly accepted the assertions to have some foundation in truth.

The FIA, it stated, "has been made aware of certain declarations and comments, clearly inaccurately informed or made maliciously, relating to this process."

The article went on to outline various ways in which the FIA had absolutely no conflict of interests in the sale of the sport to Liberty Media, laying itself bare to anyone who might wish to investigate such matters further.

Yet, quite inexplicably – perhaps inadvertently, but certainly quite foolishly – a rather large elephant had been warmly welcomed into the room in the seventh, eighth and ninth words of the shouty headline.

The FIA shouldn't have had a one percent shareholding in Delta Topco at all.

The body, you see, had agreed it would have no commercial interest in the sport and fulfil its role solely as regulator following an anti-competition investigation into F1 and resultant EU Directive in 2001.

It may only be one percent, but that single percent of a more than $6 billion sale is no small amount of money.

In issuing a press release pleading innocence of a conflict of interest to anyone who might wish to (but is not yet) investigating the body for such an alleged breach of protocol, they'd laid out precisely where that misdemeanor existed in the title.

Sometimes it really is better to remain silent.

But why does this matter? Well, it wouldn't be February and the days leading up to the fevered anticipation of car launches and pre-season testing without Formula 1 resting a DSR 50 sniper rifle on its foot and nonchalantly leaning on the trigger.

In recent days, a complaint lodged by some of Formula 1's smaller teams with the EU finally made some movement as the European Parliament produced a competition report laying out recommendations for the European Commission's future agenda.

One of the recommendations

was an "immediate investigation into competition concerns arising from the Formula 1 industry."

The original complaint revolves around the payment structure which exists in the sport and the top-heavy decision-making process encompassed within the formation of The Strategy Group. Essentially, the smallest teams in the sport have been left with the smallest slice of the financial pie, and little to no voice to affect any meaningful change. This is what the EU will investigate. But it will take time.

The FIA's pre-emptive declaration is thus an interesting step but, as already discussed, potentially a deeply flawed one in so much as it admits complete culpability in breaking an EU directive before it has even so much as reached its first punctuation mark.

This is, of course, the piranha pool into which Liberty Media has jumped. The complex and convoluted political structures of Formula 1 are a myriad of special deals and special privileges. It is this which Liberty will have to understand and then completely rewrite as its first point of business.

The teams safeguarded by the lucrative deals of old look set to lose their special statuses. Even the mighty Ferrari appears to be on the verge of losing the golden handshake which had marked it as untouchable, both financially and politically, for the past 30 years.

The Strategy Group will go. It will have to. If this season's regulation changes don't bring back the thrilling close racing that was promised, (spoiler alert – they won't) then once again the body of elites will have proven themselves incapable of thinking about the good of the sport over their own self-interest. The teams should never have had and should never be granted again the same regulatory power with which they have toyed of late. They have proven themselves utterly incapable of using the honor wisely, nor of possessing any concept of future and forward thinking strategy.

But with their voice and influence dashed, will FOTA or a variance return?

That is the fear. But interestingly, there may not be a need for it to.

You see, in Ross Brawn (pictured) Liberty has appointed a man that the teams know and trust to make the right decisions from a technical perspective. His relationship with Jean Todt also means that Liberty as CRH has an immediate link with the FIA as regulator, which is all it will be. With the sale approved, the 100 year usage of the name "Formula 1" moves to Liberty with it. And Liberty has already stated its aim of making teams shareholders in the sport. Working for the common good then becomes simple good business practice.

A few years ago, in conversation with Bernie Ecclestone, we discussed the political landscape of the sport and its need for strong leadership. Did it need a benign dictator, I asked?

"I wouldn't say benign," he smirked.

Bernie was right, of course. What Formula 1 needs and has always needed, is strong leadership.

The FIA never should have taken its one percent shareholding in Formula 1 and may very well find itself in hot water if and when the EU investigates the commercial and competitive practices of the sport. But that is the FIA's problem. Because by the time the EU finally gets around to beginning its investigation, I would envisage it will find a far different sport to that which it was asked to look into.

By 2020, one imagines we will see a sport where the FIA's sole responsibility is to make and uphold the rules, under the direction and recommendation of Brawn, himself a conduit of the teams and a member of the CRH, ensuring consensus among competitors and a saleable product for the owners. The CRH will sell the sport and leverage its global appeal to create wealth which is fairly distributed among the competing entities on an open and level foundation. And the teams will go racing. If they're shareholders, there will be no need for a FOTA. If they grow disconcerted and set up their own union, their cries may very well fall on deaf ears. Race or go home.

Strong leadership and the concept of a flourishing integrated society of shared benefit don't have to be mutually exclusive. Under Liberty, there's every chance the two might go hand in hand.

Right, can we see some cars and go testing now please?