“They think we're against the British” – FIA president wades into F1 stewards debate

At the FIA Congress in Buenos Aires, President Mohammed Ben Sulayem made a striking statement when addressing the controversy surrounding stewards at the Dutch Grand Prix. “They think we're against the British,” he said, alluding to accusations of bias from both Argentina and Britain. The issue stems from penalties handed to Franco Colapinto and Arvid Lindblad, two promising young drivers, which sparked a wave of criticism from fans in Argentina and Britain. The Dutch Grand Prix at Zandvoort witnessed one of the most controversial moments of the season. On the very first lap, Max Verstappen was involved in a heavy crash, forcing race control to wave yellow flags. Under FIA regulations, when yellow flags are shown, drivers must slow down and are not allowed to overtake. However, Franco Colapinto of Alpine and Arvid Lindblad of Racing Bulls were found to have overtaken under these conditions, resulting in drive-through penalties. Both drivers disputed the decision, claiming they did not receive the signal in time from race control. Soon after, a wave of criticism from Argentine fans erupted on social media. Colapinto, a young Argentine driver, enjoys massive support from his home country. A sponsor executive for Colapinto even publicly questioned the FIA's integrity on Twitter, escalating the tension. Furthermore, Ben Sulayem revealed that he had heard similar complaints from Britain, where fans believe stewards are biased against British drivers. During the press conference, Ben Sulayem defended the stewards' decision while announcing plans to reform the officiating system. He said the FIA would rotate stewards between races and enhance training through member clubs (ASNs). “We are not biased toward any nation. We are accused of being against Argentina, then against Britain. This shows we are doing things right, because no one is satisfied,” he said. This is not the first time the FIA has faced accusations of bias. Throughout F1 history, there have been numerous controversies over stewards' decisions, from disputed penalties to sensitive situations like yellow flags or collisions. One of the most famous cases was the 2026 Japanese Grand Prix, when Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost collided while battling for the lead. Many believed Senna deliberately caused the crash, but the FIA took no significant action. Similarly, in 2026 at Adelaide, Michael Schumacher and Damon Hill had a controversial collision that handed Schumacher the title. These incidents set a precedent that stewards' decisions can always be questioned. However, this case has a key difference: the involvement of social media and pressure from sponsors. When a sponsor executive publicly criticizes the FIA, it shows the issue goes beyond sport into economics and politics. In the digital age, every stewards' decision can spread rapidly, and sponsors can pressure teams and the FIA through media channels. This creates an environment where stewards face immense pressure, and sometimes they may make decisions that are not entirely accurate. In my view, the fact that Ben Sulayem personally called Colapinto is a sign that the FIA is worried about the impact of this case. Colapinto, despite lacking standout results, has a huge fan base in Argentina, where F1 holds a special place. Pressure from sponsors may force the FIA to reconsider how it handles similar situations in the future. I have witnessed many similar cases in the past, and I've noticed that when a driver has strong home support, the FIA often has to be more cautious in its decisions. I have followed F1 for over three decades, and I have never seen stewarding controversies become as intense as this. There are silences on the track that speak louder than any blockbuster contract, and here, the FIA's silence amid accusations has created a vacuum for speculation. Fans don't remember numbers; they remember the breath of the race. And in this race, the breath of the stewards is being choked by public pressure. Another issue to consider is the inconsistency in stewards' decisions. Over the years, fans and teams have complained about stewards making different calls in similar situations. For example, while some drivers are penalized for overtaking under yellow flags, others are not. This creates a sense of injustice and erodes trust in the system. Rotating stewards might help address this, but it could also lead to instability if not managed well. Additionally, we must examine the role of member clubs (ASNs) in training stewards. Ben Sulayem said the FIA will ask ASNs to nominate steward candidates, which could enhance diversity and objectivity. However, do ASNs have the capacity to train stewards to international standards? This is a big question. In the past, there have been cases where stewards from smaller nations lacked the experience to handle complex F1 situations. Rigorous training and oversight will be crucial. Another aspect is the difference between F1 and other sports in handling officiating. In football, referees can use VAR to review incidents, but in F1, decisions are often made in real-time with little opportunity for review. This poses a major challenge for stewards, who must make quick, accurate decisions under pressure. Technology could help, but fairness and transparency must be considered. In this context, Ben Sulayem's statement can be seen as an effort to reassure the public. However, will it be enough to calm fans' anger? I'm not sure. Argentine fans are still furious, and they may continue to pressure the FIA in upcoming races. Similarly, British fans may feel offended if they believe their drivers are treated unfairly. This could lead to a crisis of confidence in the FIA. I recall a saying from a veteran steward: “The steward is the only person on the track who makes no mistakes, yet is blamed the most.” This is very true in F1. Stewards must make difficult decisions, and they always face criticism from one side or another. However, what matters is that they maintain fairness and objectivity. If they do, they will earn respect from everyone, even if their decisions don't please all. In the future, the FIA may need to reconsider its entire officiating system. Rotation and training are steps in the right direction, but perhaps deeper changes are needed. For instance, the FIA could establish a professional stewarding panel, including former drivers and legal experts, to make decisions more consistently. They could also use technology to assist stewards, such as telemetry data to determine if a driver overtook under yellow flags. However, these changes must be made carefully to preserve the sport's appeal. F1 is a dramatic sport, and stewarding controversies are part of that drama. If we eliminate all controversy, the sport could become boring. Therefore, the FIA must find a balance between ensuring fairness and maintaining excitement. Returning to the Zandvoort incident, I believe the stewards made their decision based on the evidence they had. However, the lack of transparency in the decision-making process has created doubts. If the FIA could publish the evidence and clearly explain why they made the decision, it might reduce controversy. This would also help build fan trust in the system. Finally, I want to emphasize that, regardless of our disagreements with stewards' decisions, we must respect them. They work hard to ensure races are fair and safe. Instead of attacking them on social media, we should support them and provide constructive feedback. Only then can F1 develop sustainably. And as I said, at 54, I've learned that emotions are a rare form of data. In this case, fans' emotions are data the FIA cannot ignore. They need to listen and understand those emotions to make better decisions in the future. We will see whether the FIA can do that in the coming races.