FIA President Wades into Stewards Debate: 'They Think We're Against the British'

At Zandvoort, when Max Verstappen crashed on the opening lap, drivers Franco Colapinto and Arvid Lindblad were penalized for overtaking under yellow flags. But the controversy is not just about the penalties, but how FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem had to speak out amid accusations of bias. In a press conference in Buenos Aires, he said: 'They think we're against the British, but we've received similar complaints from the British side.' This statement opened a deep debate about fairness in F1 race management. The context of the incident stems from the Dutch Grand Prix, where Verstappen had an incident on the first lap, forcing race organizers to wave yellow flags. According to regulations, drivers are not allowed to overtake under these conditions. However, Colapinto (Alpine) and Lindblad (Racing Bulls) were given drive-through penalties for violating this rule. Both drivers expressed disagreement with the stewards' decision, claiming they did not receive clear signals from the light system or flags. The situation quickly became a focal point of criticism from Argentine fans, especially since Colapinto is the only Argentine driver on the grid. An executive from a sponsor of Colapinto publicly questioned the FIA's integrity on social media, prompting President Ben Sulayem to personally call the driver to explain. This shows the commercial and media pressure the FIA faces when making controversial decisions. Interestingly, Ben Sulayem also revealed that he had received similar complaints from the British side, where fans believe stewards are biased against British drivers. This creates a 'catch-22' situation for the FIA: they are accused of bias from both sides, which suggests that no real bias exists, or if it does, it cannot satisfy everyone. Going deeper, I notice that the issue is not whether stewards are biased, but the lack of transparency in the decision-making process. F1 stewards are usually experienced individuals, but they are not systematically trained to handle such sensitive situations. Ben Sulayem has announced reform plans, including rotating stewards and asking member clubs (ASNs) to nominate candidates. This is a step in the right direction, but is it enough to quell the wave of criticism? From the perspective of a long-time F1 observer, I believe this controversy reflects a larger problem: the lack of trust from fans in the fairness of the sport. When every steward decision is scrutinized through the lens of national bias, no matter what the FIA does, they cannot please everyone. This is like trying to balance a scale where both sides have invisible weights. However, I also see a positive point: Ben Sulayem's public acknowledgment that he has heard complaints from both sides shows that the FIA is trying to listen. Instead of ignoring criticism, he chose to engage in direct dialogue with drivers and stakeholders. This is a sign of maturity in governance, but it also raises the question: will this dialogue lead to real change, or is it just a PR stunt? Another notable point is the difference in how drivers reacted. While Colapinto and Lindblad publicly expressed disagreement, other drivers remained silent. This could be because they do not want to add pressure on the FIA, or perhaps they genuinely agree with the stewards' decision. This silence is also important information, as it shows that not all drivers feel unfairly treated. I recall a famous sports journalist's quote: 'The applause in an empty stadium is more honest than the song of the crowd.' In this context, criticism from fans may not reflect reality, but it is a measure of public trust. If the FIA cannot restore this trust, no matter how many reforms they make, they will not survive long. Strategically, I believe the FIA needs to act more decisively. Simply rotating stewards is not enough; they need to publicly disclose evidence and decision-making processes so fans can understand better. This could include broadcasting steward meetings or publishing detailed reports on each decision. Only then can fans believe the FIA is working transparently and fairly. However, I also recognize that disclosing too much information could have unintended consequences. For example, if stewards know every decision will be publicly scrutinized, they may become overly cautious and miss violations. This is a trade-off the FIA must carefully consider. Another aspect I want to address is the role of media in amplifying controversies. In the age of social media, every steward decision can become a hot topic within minutes. This puts enormous pressure on the FIA, and sometimes they make unpopular decisions just to avoid criticism. This is a vicious cycle that is not easy to escape. I believe this controversy will not end soon, but it has opened an opportunity for the FIA to reconsider its operations. If they know how to seize this opportunity, they can build a more transparent and fair steward system, thereby strengthening fan trust. Conversely, if they only make empty promises, this crisis will be just the beginning of bigger problems in the future. Finally, I want to emphasize that no matter what the FIA does, they cannot please everyone. But what matters is that they show genuine goodwill and effort to improve. Only then can they earn respect from the F1 community. And as I often say: 'The stranger doesn't need a ticket; they open the door with their own feet.' The FIA needs to open the door with concrete actions, not promises. In the future, I will closely monitor whether Ben Sulayem's reform plans are implemented seriously. If so, I believe F1 will become fairer and more exciting. If not, we will continue to see similar controversies, which will damage the sport's reputation. Let's wait and see.