FIA President Ben Sulayem and the fight against bias accusations: 'They think we're against the British'

Zandvoort, Netherlands – When Max Verstappen's car crashed into the barriers on the opening lap of the Dutch Grand Prix, few could have predicted that this moment would spark a controversy far bigger than a typical racing incident. Verstappen, the home hero, crashed at his home race, forcing race organizers to wave yellow flags. In that chaotic context, two young drivers – Franco Colapinto of Alpine and Arvid Lindblad of Racing Bulls – were handed drive-through penalties for overtaking under yellow flags. This seemingly straightforward penalty ignited a crisis of confidence in the FIA's fairness, pushing President Mohammed Ben Sulayem to address accusations of nationality-based bias.

The context of the incident extends beyond the two penalties. Colapinto, the Argentine driver, quickly received a wave of support from his home fans. A sponsor executive for Colapinto even publicly questioned the FIA's integrity on social media. Meanwhile, Lindblad, the British driver, also expressed his disagreement with the stewards' decision. Both claimed they did not violate the regulations. The combination of an Argentine and a British driver both being penalized created a fascinating paradox: both sides accused the FIA of bias, but in completely opposite directions.

It was in this tense context that President Ben Sulayem made his notable remarks at the FIA Congress in Buenos Aires. He said: "They think we're against the British." This statement was made as he acknowledged hearing similar complaints from the British side that the FIA was targeting their drivers. This reveals a reality where bias accusations are being made from both sides, and Ben Sulayem faces a difficult challenge: how to prove the FIA's neutrality in an environment where every decision is scrutinized through the lens of nationality.

Injury records don't lie – only those who read them know how to hide the truth. In this case, there are no injury records, but there is another kind of record: the record of stewards' decisions. And this record is being read in very different ways. Drivers and fans look at the penalty and see injustice. The FIA looks at the same penalty and sees regulatory compliance. The gap between these two readings is where the truth about the FIA's fairness is being hidden.

When the locker room door closes, I realize the tactics aren't on the whiteboard. In my years of following racing, I've learned that the most important decisions are often not made on the track, but in closed rooms with political calculations. This case is no exception. Ben Sulayem is not just handling a yellow-flag incident; he is handling a crisis of trust. And he has chosen to respond with a clearly political statement, promising to call Colapinto directly to explain.

Ben Sulayem's response did not stop at the phone call promise. He also announced plans to reform the steward system, where FIA member clubs (ASNs) would nominate steward candidates. This move is seen as an attempt to increase diversity and consistency in decisions. However, the question remains: will changing how stewards are selected solve the root of the problem? Is the issue about people, or about the system itself creating undue pressure on decisions?

Data has no gender. Only those who read data carry bias. Similarly, penalty data has no nationality. Only those who read that data assign it meanings of bias. In this case, both sides are reading the same data (the penalties for Colapinto and Lindblad) but reaching completely opposite conclusions. The Argentine side sees injustice against their driver. The British side also sees injustice against their driver. This shows that the problem is not the penalty itself, but how stakeholders perceive the FIA.

Another notable point is that Ben Sulayem mentioned the campaign against online abuse, a problem that became severe after a Miami steward received death threats. Weaving the issue of steward safety into this controversy reveals a deeper concern: if decisions continue to be fiercely attacked on social media, it will be very difficult to attract and retain competent stewards. This is a systemic issue that cannot be solved by a small-scale reform.

A backache can tell the story of locker room politics, if you're willing to listen. Similarly, a yellow-flag overtaking penalty can tell the story of the politics of an entire sport, if you're willing to look at what's happening behind the scenes. This case shows that F1 is not just a race of the fastest cars, but also a race of narratives, perceptions, and battles for trust.

From the perspective of someone who has followed racing for nearly two decades, I see that this case is not an isolated incident. It is part of a larger trend where decisions by governing bodies are increasingly scrutinized and politicized. In the past, penalties were often accepted as part of the game. Today, they become subjects of public debate, social media campaigns, and even journalistic investigations.

This shift can be explained by several factors. First, the rise of social media has given fans a direct and immediate voice. Second, the fierce competition between teams means every decision can affect the overall outcome. Third, the lack of transparency in the FIA's decision-making process has created fertile ground for suspicion and accusations.

In this context, Ben Sulayem's response can be seen as an attempt to control the narrative. By publicly acknowledging the bias accusations and promising reform, he is trying to show that the FIA listens and is willing to change. However, the big question remains: will these reforms be deep enough to address the root of the problem, or are they just temporary measures?

I don't trust a medical report before understanding the pressure on the doctor's signature. Similarly, I cannot trust a statement about the FIA's fairness before understanding the political and commercial pressures behind those statements. Ben Sulayem is not just a sports official; he is a political figure in a global organization with many factions and interests. Every decision he makes must consider multiple factors, from team pressures to member club desires to the FIA's international image.

This case also raises an important question about the role of sponsors in pressuring governing bodies. A sponsor executive for Colapinto publicly questioning the FIA's integrity is a notable signal. It shows that sponsors are no longer standing on the sidelines, but are ready to use their influence to protect the interests of the drivers they sponsor. This could set a dangerous precedent where governing body decisions are influenced by commercial pressure.

Another aspect to consider is the role of media in shaping the narrative. Articles, analyses, and social media discussions all contribute to creating a certain atmosphere around FIA decisions. In this case, emphasizing the nationality factor (Argentina vs Britain) may have intensified polarization and made the controversy more heated. Is the media inadvertently contributing to the politicization of sporting decisions?

From a long-term perspective, this case could be a turning point in how the FIA manages controversies. If Ben Sulayem succeeds in implementing reforms and restoring trust, he could set a precedent for other sports organizations. Conversely, if the crisis of trust continues, it could erode the FIA's credibility and affect the sport's development.

One detail I find particularly important in this story is Ben Sulayem's choice of Buenos Aires as the venue for his remarks. This is a deliberate choice. Buenos Aires is Colapinto's hometown and where the wave of support for this driver is strongest. By making his statement there, Ben Sulayem is sending a message that he is not avoiding the controversy but is ready to face it at the very center of opposition.

This shows considerable political sophistication. Instead of issuing a dry statement from FIA headquarters in Paris, Ben Sulayem chose to engage directly with those criticizing him. This could be an effective strategy to ease tensions, but it could also be a double-edged sword if his promises are not concretely fulfilled.

For Colapinto, this case could be an opportunity to consolidate his position in F1. Receiving strong support from fans and sponsors, along with the FIA President personally calling to explain, shows that he is being treated as an important figure. However, this also places great pressure on him: he needs to prove he deserves that attention with results on the track.

For Lindblad, this case could be a valuable lesson in the early stages of his career. Being penalized and then drawn into an international controversy can help him better understand the pressures and complexities of the F1 environment. These are lessons no school can teach, and they will stay with him throughout his career.

Three years of pandemic taught me that the gap between two teams can always become a bridge. In this context, the gap between the FIA and fans, between stewards' decisions and public acceptance, can become a bridge if stakeholders are willing to listen and understand. But it can also become a chasm if distrust continues to be nurtured.

The final question I want to raise is: is F1 heading in the right direction in managing controversies? Will increasing steward diversity truly solve the root problem, or is it just a cosmetic measure? And more importantly, are stakeholders willing to look at the issue objectively, or will they continue to view everything through the lens of national and commercial interests?

These questions have no easy answers. But they are questions that anyone concerned about the sustainable development of this sport needs to ask. Because, as I said, data has no nationality, but those who read data always carry their own biases. And it is those biases, not the data, that are shaping this controversy.