Let us not get into the confusing question about whether a complaint to the European Commission’s Competition Directorate can be withdrawn, or whether such a complaint continues until the Commission is satisfied that all is well. Let us not waste much energy on the complete lack of energy that the Commission has shown in relation to this complaint, which clearly suggests that it has (or had) no interest at all in the subject, at least not since it became clear that the ownership of the sport would change and that the new owners wanted change. Margrethe Vestager, the European Commissioner for Competition, is a smart woman. She has other more important things to worry about than Formula 1. There was a time that those opposed to the sale of F1 to Liberty (and their lackeys) were peddling the idea that it could be stopped by Vestager. Someone wound up a British MEP Anneliese Dodds to write a letter, but Vestager politely informed Dodds that the Commission would not be investigating the sale.

Dodds had previously been wound up by someone to raise questions about competition issues in Formula 1. Nothing happened with that. Vestager was not interested, probably because she is smart enough to recognise a wind-up when she sees one. This does not mean that there were no questions to be answered, merely that the suggestions came from the wrong people.

In October 2015, eleven months after the above kerfuffle, Sauber and Force India (very much in that order) lodged an official complaint with the Competition Directorate, alleging that Formula 1 is dividing revenues and making rules in “an unfair and unlawful” manner. The complaint challenged not only the financial side of the business, but also the governance structures. If one knows the way that this is structured (and virtually no-one does because no-one is allowed to reveal the revenue splits) it is very clear that the two teams had a very good point. However, by the time the Commission got round to the F1 question, the landscape had changed.

It was clear by the middle of 2016 that the business was “in play”. It was sold by September, but there were things needing to be done and so it was not all completed until January 2017. After that, Liberty sank knives very deeply into places where knives needed to be sunk. And it was done. Liberty arrived and the sun came out. There was another way… a better and brighter (intellectually-speaking) way of making money from the sport. The EU complaint became fairly irrelevant.

The two teams say that they are “greatly encouraged by the dialogue that has been introduced following the appointment of Chase Carey as Executive Chairman and CEO of the Formula 1 commercial rights holder and his new management team”.

They go on to say that “their approach has brought a new culture of transparency to the sport and illustrates willingness to debate fundamental issues such as the distribution of the prize fund monies, cost control and engine regulations. We are encouraged and reassured by the even-handed and fair negotiating approach taken by the new management of Formula 1 to all the teams and their issues”.

Anyone sensible will agree. The teams say that “the concerns leading to the complaint were fully justified, we believe this new approach provides the necessary degree of assurance that our concerns will be looked at objectively, and we prefer to resolve the issues facing the sport through dialogue rather than a legal dispute”.

Very sensible.

Inevitably, those who gain financially from the dubious deals of 2013 are not happy, but when all is said and done, they have to justify why they are paid what they are paid. They cannot. Historical brand value? Hmmm. Ferrari needs F1 as much as F1 needs Ferrari. The deals with Mercedes, Red Bull, McLaren and (to a much lesser extent) Williams are dubious at best. Renault has some forward-facing deals, which were required to get a commitment at the time. These things all need to be sorted out.

But, if all these companies were willing to don long trousers and act in a more sensible fashion, they sport would be better off for it – and they too would benefit. They will argue against this, of course, just as dogs are loathe to give up bones, but a little longer term thinking would be wise, intelligent and a good thing…