I understand your point and It's not that i don't generally agree to it -
heck, It's a nice trick of Mosley and Ecclestone, that's a given.
I understand the clash of definition about owning/leasing.
But effectively, FIA may 'essentially' own F1's commercial rights, they have LEASED it to Bernie.
Thus, effectively, Bernie controls the rights.
And that means, Bernie is the one who cares, not the FIA. the FIA gets 3 million a year to have a secure future.
For what it's worth, i don't doubt the articles you provide, and I knew of their existence. What i do like to point out
is i hold the Guardian not as a more trustworthy source in comparison to Wikipedia at that.
some more from grandprix.com
To make a long story short;Ecclestone is understood to be paying the FIA a total of $360m. Of this $60m is a lump sum payment at the start of the deal. This will enable the governing body to establish itself in suitable new offices, to fund important research programs and to make investments so that the organization will continue to be properly funded. In addition there will be an annual payment of $3m. This means that the governing body will be able to remain a non-profit-making organization under French law and so will return to Paris in the months ahead. The FIA has cleared the way for the move by settling its taxation dispute with the French government
The 100-year deal for commercial rights to the World Championship has, apparently, been accepted by the European Commission Competition Directorate as it is so long a deal that it cannot be considered anti-competitive as it is, in effect, the same as an outright sale.
The FIA General Assembly would not accept a deal to lease the entire World Championship to Ecclestone but agreed to an extension of the commercial rights deal. As a result the governing body will continue to supply the administrative and legislative services for Formula 1.
Bernie is responsible and bernie cares about the commercial rights of Formula 1.
Not the FIA.
Compare it to an organistation which owns a stretch of land of 100km2. The organisation leases the land for a 100 years to a Businessman. The lease contract holds he'll pay the organisation a certain amount of money annually.
Whatever the Businessman does on this land, is ouf of his care, and out of his reach. He leases it. So if the businessman wants to build 40 casinos and 40 hotels on this land, then he can do that. If for some reason the businessman doesn't have as much visitors in 10 of the casinos and 10 of the hotels he had before, then this is the issue of the Businessman, not that of the organisation that leased the stretch of land. Hell, the leaser would still not be interested if there was left just 1 casino and 1 hotel. The leaser would not even care if there is nothing left. If the Businessman has saved enouh money on a bank account which annually automatically gets send to the leaser, then still, nothing happens and nobody cares.
it's as simple as that.
The matter of fact, i indeed once wrote about 'owning', perhaps that wasn't the correct word to use, but the
rest of the articles/mentioning is not rather owning, but 'controling'. even if Bernie is not the owner, he DOES control
the rights, not the FIA.
Thus, to come back to the point i made before;
the FIA does not care about how many people watch F1. Bernie does, the FIA doesn't.