Bernie Ecclestone: Why F1’s titanic leader was loved and loathed

For years, the more unsavoury aspects of Ecclestone’s stewardship were glossed over or laughed off – largely because he was making those he was working for so much money.

But in recent years, the tone in F1 has changed as more and more people began to feel he was past his sell-by date.

He was a reluctant embracer of the internet age, and rejected entreaties to try to use it to extend F1’s reach.

His argument was that he saw no way to make money out of it; others argued that his modus operandi of pursuing only the deal, the bottom line, and disregarding its potential longer-term effects was doing more harm than good.

His simple model – sell television rights and races to the highest bidder no matter who it was; squeeze the highest price possible out of continuing partners – created an annual global revenue in the region of $1.5bn (£1.2bn).

Yet he became increasingly haphazard and intransigent in his decision-making, coming up with unpopular ideas such as a double-points finale in 2014 or the fiasco over the change to the qualifying format at the start of 2016 – to try to spice up the sport.

He was responding to declining audiences, but seemed to ignore the fact they were dropping largely because of his switch away from free-to-air towards pay television in key markets, and the questionable effect on the racing of gimmicks such as the DRS overtaking aid and tyres on which drivers could not push flat out.

The declining audiences have led to a crisis of confidence within the sport, the response to which is a new set of rules for 2017 that mean faster, more dramatic-looking cars. But already there are concerns that these may not have the desired effect.