Jumping into the Future

Rallying’s Leadership Test

The FIA’s announcement of a tender for a new World Rally Championship promoter has raised as many questions about leadership as it has about the future of the sport. For months the current promoter had been exploring a sale, supported by a large financial organisation, with valuations inevitably influenced by Liberty Media’s acquisition of MotoGP. That deal set a benchmark which many had hoped rallying could follow. At the same time, criticism grew that the WRC was not being promoted effectively, although when pressed, few could agree on what promotion actually means. Ask ten stakeholders, and you will hear ten different answers. Social media engagement. Spectacle of events. Global expansion. Commercial growth. The only common thread is dissatisfaction, with no clear articulation of what success should look like.

There was no shortage of interest. Wealthy individuals and major funds reportedly examined the opportunity. But every conversation ran into the same wall: time. With only seven years left on the existing agreement, the value was capped. Investors do not build strategies on horizons that close before momentum can gather. The runway was simply too short.

Attempts were made to solve this. The promoter sought an extension, hoping to unlock longer-term value. Yet that request came with conditions, with the FIA understood to have asked for significant financial consideration in return. Whether that was fair or opportunistic hardly mattered in the end, negotiations stalled. Frustration built, and eventually one of the sport’s most visible backers even withdrew from its WRC and WRX programmes altogether.

Then came the FIA’s announcement. A new tender, a new promoter, and a timetable so rapid it bordered on theatrical: submissions due in November, a decision before the December General Assembly, and a new contract in place by January. The speed was striking. So too the proximity to the Presidential elections. To some, this looked less like a strategic process and more like a display of control in a politically useful moment. The announcement’s phrasing only deepened uncertainty, raising doubts whether this was about renewal, or stagecraft.

This is where the line between leadership and interference becomes central. Leadership is about setting direction, building partnerships, inspiring trust. Interference is about proving who is in charge. The difference can seem slight, but in practice it decides whether stakeholders lean in with confidence or retreat with suspicion. When governance becomes theatre, energy goes into staging the act rather than designing the system. The applause may swell or silence might follow, but neither brings real progress.

The governance shadows extend deeper. As a not-for-profit entity, the FIA cannot distribute commercial surpluses directly to its clubs, only through grants and programmes. How any proceeds are allocated will heavily influence perceptions of fairness, especially if the process appears tied to political expedience rather than strategic clarity. And while conflicts of interest may not be declared, they are rarely invisible. When leadership is too close to the mechanics of the process, impartiality is questioned. The sport deserves governance that rises above such doubt.

Until now, however, all of this noise has risked obscuring the real issue. The question is not who holds the contract, but what rallying wants to be over the next 25 years. This is more than another contractual cycle. In the years ahead, the sport will face technological revolutions. Today’s teenage audience will be tomorrow’s decision-makers. Environmental and societal scrutiny will intensify. The very notion of mobility will shift. Only a deal anchored in a clear vision of rallying’s future, rather than short-term gains, has true value.

So what might rallying look like in 2050? Will cars be electric, hydrogen-fuelled, hybrid; or powered by something not yet imagined? How can it welcome new markets without losing the identity that has always defined it? Where lies the equilibrium between spectacle and sustainability, heritage and innovation? Fans of the future will demand experiences that are immersive, interactive, and responsible. If rallying cannot chart that journey itself, others will define it.

The contrast with Formula 1 is instructive. Its regulator, also the FIA, has been widely criticised for poor governance and a lack of stability; floating ideas of V10s, then V8s, and now further tweaks to the not-yet-introduced 2026 powertrain regulations before recently doing a U-turn when they couldn’t get the support from the power unit manufacturers. Constantly shifting the goalposts creates uncertainty and fuels the sense that short-term attention-seeking has taken precedence over long-term planning. In contrast, the promoter, through F1’s CEO, has been engaging directly with fans to understand what the next generation of audiences want. In recent comments, he noted that younger viewers increasingly prefer highlights to full races, and that the sport must be open to adapting formats, such as sprints or even shorter Grands Prix, to remain relevant. That is not theatre. It is strategy: transparent, data-driven, and focused on designing systems that will carry the sport into the future.

History suggests that commercial models follow vision, not the other way around. When a sport knows what it stands for, opportunity aligns. When the vision is vague, no level of promotion can disguise the cracks. The criticism that rallying is insufficiently promoted is a symptom, not the disease. The deeper problem is that nobody has clearly defined what “promotion” should achieve. Until that is resolved, every future promoter will struggle, judged by expectations that shift with the wind.

The European Rally Championship offers a lesson in contrast. Its entry lists are strong, top categories are well populated and the competition is close. Yet media visibility remains modest. Participation alone doesn’t guarantee attention, and attention alone doesn’t sustain engagement. Rallying’s value lies in its drama, unpredictability, and the human stories unfolding across unforgiving terrain. Connecting that essence with modern audiences will require more than tweaks; it demands a system calibrated to carry the sport into the future.

So the current tender becomes more than a transaction, it is symbolic. Is it a step toward renewal, or a piece of political theatre? If no viable bidder emerges, will the FIA take the championship in-house as it has with other series? That would provoke tough questions about competition, transparency, and whether lessons from the past have been learned. These are not footnotes. They speak to whether decisions are being made to safeguard rallying’s future or merely to enforce authority.

Rallying deserves more than gestures. It deserves leadership that is transparent, principled, strategic, treating promoters as partners, not adversaries and committed to designing systems that endure. The effort should not be about proving who is in charge, it should be about defining what the next 25 years of the sport must become. Without that clarity, no promoter, no matter how capable, will succeed.

Because rallying has always thrived on courage, precision, and trust in the system to carry a crew through unseen stages. Governance requires no less. The real question is whether those steering the sport today are willing to commit to a future with the same conviction. The choice is between repeating the past or designing a future worthy of rallying’s spirit. If leaders choose the latter, the next 25 years could yet be the sport’s most compelling stage.