Drivers risk sporting penalties if they break new FIA restrictions on expression

2023 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

The FIA has confirmed the full range of penalties available to punish drivers who violate its new rules which prohibit political expressions at certain times during events.

The sport’s governing body issued a detailed clarification of its recently-introduced regulations today. Drivers will be forbidden from expressing a range of political and religious views at many stages during events, including pre- and post-race ceremonies, track activities and FIA press conferences.

It has also detailed the penalties available to the stewards if any driver is found to have breached the new clause for 2023, article 12.2.1.n of the International Sporting Code. A guidance note issued to teams states “the stewards may impose any of the penalties listed under Article 12.4.1 of the ISC” in the event of a breach.

This clause details 15 different potential penalties. Of these, 11 are sporting, and vary from minor sanctions such as lap time deletion in any session, to in-race penalties, all the way up to disqualification, suspension and exclusion.

Four non-sporting penalties are also available. These are a warning, a reprimand, a fine and “obligation to accomplish some work of public interest.”

Before the clarification was issued, some drivers indicated they were prepared to risk a penalty in order to express themselves as they choose.

“I think it would be silly to say that I would want to get penalty points for speaking out on things,” Lewis Hamilton told media including RaceFans on Wednesday. “But as I said to you, I’m still going to be speaking my mind and as we still have this platform, there’s still a lot of things that we need to tackle.”

Available penalties for drivers who violate ISC article 12.2.1.n

Penalties may be inflicted as follows:

  • Warning
  • Reprimand (blame)
  • Fine
  • Obligation to accomplish some work of public interest
  • Disallowance or deletion of a Driver’s race, qualifying and practice lap time(s)
  • Drop of grid position(s)
  • Obligation for a Driver to start a race from the pit lane
  • Time penalty
  • Penalty lap(s)
  • Drop of place(s) in the classification of the Competition
  • Drive-through penalty
  • Stop-and-go or stop-and-go with a prescribed stop time
  • Disqualification
  • Suspension
  • Exclusion

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2023 F1 season

Browse all 2023 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

62 comments on “Drivers risk sporting penalties if they break new FIA restrictions on expression”

  1. Lemme get this straight: a driver can swear like a drunken sailor on the radio knowing there is a strong possibility it will be broadcasted and left to the broadcaster to beep it out… with no penalty. Because that’s free speech, right?But speak about human/political/environmental issues and you could have laps delete or stop-go penalties!
    Am I not correct that as a body based in the EU, the FIA is subject to EU laws. Is this not a violation of Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?

    1. Feels legit, right.

      1. When you sell out to the journalist saws, this is what ya get

    2. No, because there is no “interference by [a] public authority” involved. This is the FIA, which organizes championships the drivers sign up for voluntarily.

    3. FIA Statute 1.2:
      “The FIA shall promote the protection of human rights and human dignity, and refrain from manifesting discrimination on account of race, skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic or social origin, language, religion, philosophical or political opinion, family situation or disability in the course of its activities and from taking any action in this respect. The FIA will focus on underrepresented groups in order to achieve a more balanced representation of gender and race and to create a more diverse and inclusive culture.”

  2. Saner minds didn’t prevail.

    This will end in embarrassment for the FIA and the president who lobbied for this.

    1. They should call this what it is, the Saudia gag. money talks apparently, it also gags.

      1. It makes you wonder again about that final in 2021….

        1. The final was as rigged as anything I’ve ever seen in sports. We just have to accept that what was a sport 30 years ago is entertainment today. Be cool if drivers could agree to drop the gloves and go after a wreck.

          1. It very much felt rigged while I was watching the race. Masi bowed down to Horner’s radio requests on the SC almost verbatim. I doubt anything was pre-planned but my goodness it was incredibly obvious Masi acted completely in favor of Red Bull and Verstappen, to the point of ignoring the written SC rule that lapped cars must pass the pack instead of just a few. Masi literally said “give me a minute” after Horner’s radio requests…then Masi comes back on the radio and says “okay I did everything you wanted me to” even though it was against SC rules. Everyone says Merc was at fault for not pitting Hamilton but in any other race it would have ended under SC, according the actual rules it HAD to be finished under SC because all cars had no unlapped themselves by the penultimate lap. That condition alone means the race ends under SC, because the SC can only end one lap after all cars have unlapped. The call to end the SC was also way too sudden, like a complete surprise because he specifically wanted that final lap showdown. That ridiculously orchestrated finish had me question whether I’d even continue watching the sport. Because absurd display was not sport, it was theatrics. And even after all that bs, Lewis immediately congratulated Max. I have a really hard time believing Max would do the same if the roles were reversed. The SC farce not only hurt Hamilton but also Sainz, Norris, and more who could have fought for a podium had they been able to unlap.

  3. I hope all the drivers band together to fight this idiotic rule.

  4. Apparently the rules allow the drivers to present a case for their ‘political’ comments – four weeks ahead of time. Very big of the FIA.

    Yet how exactly would that work, when there’s always going to be that reaction to breaking news, or situations which could not be known 4 weeks before time?

    1. Exactly…. ;)
      After 4 weeks have passed, who would still want to bring it up? They’d just make themselves look foolish and out of touch.

      Although – if they did, at least they’d have had plenty of time to make a more compelling argument for banging on about something completely unrelated to motorsport during the FIA’s media slot.

  5. I hope the GPDA are able to organize around this topic and push back against such transparent hypocrisy.

  6. So no sporting penalties when your team cheats, but you get one for advocating for human rights?

    1. Only if you advocate for the wrong humans’ rights.

      Right, Mohammed Ben Sulayem?

  7. I love the fact that idle money worshippers are telling hard working athletes what they are allowed to think and say.

    I hope this kind of thing spreads fast so that a swift (hopefully violent) backlash ensues throughout the Sporting world.

  8. If the drivers wanted to be clever and show unity against this ridiculous overreach of the FIA’s authority, they should just agree to support one message or cause per race by all 20 of them at the same time. If everyone gets the same penalty it makes the penalty moot.

    1. @vivagilles27 Or they could just not race, since racing would at this point be in breach of the FIA’s regulations. Unless of course the FIA wishes to write permission individually to every single person who travels the paddock to do the (fully-listed-and-enumerated) jobs they need to do in order for the drivers to race (which would also require them to be individually issued with fully-listed-and-enumerated authorisation letters).

  9. “Obligation to accomplish some work of public interest” …. picking up beer cans along the road? Fixer_B made me snicker/chuckle/snort/”titter” (so to speak), etc.

    1. Could you imagine if this was the punishment for making a statement about protecting the environment by responsibly disposing waste? Your punishment is tidying the environment!

    2. @elchinero You may safely rewrite that as “some work of the FIA’s interest, that will be published for public consumption with an angle to attempt to interest them in it”.

  10. We raced as one. That didn’t last long.

    1. Thought that would be a great title for a song:

      We raced as one, united in our drive,
      But the FIA’s new rules cut us down to size,
      Political expressions we cannot thrive,
      Forbidden at many stages in our eyes.

      We raced as one, it didn’t last long,
      Our voices silenced, our spirit gone,
      Penalties abound, we must stay strong,
      Our platform may be gone, but we’ll carry on.

      Some will risk it all, to speak their truth,
      But the consequences could be too uncouth,
      Lap time deletions, in-race penalties too,
      Suspension and exclusion, what will they do?

      We raced as one, it didn’t last long,
      Our voices silenced, our spirit gone,
      Penalties abound, we must stay strong,
      Our platform may be gone, but we’ll carry on.

      1. Nice one @Tristan and Ben, well put.

    2. We gag as one.

      1. You’ve never worked for an employer other than yourself?
        Never signed a work contract with a company that has a code of conduct?
        Never publicly represented anyone or any entity (business or otherwise) other than yourself?

        If the FIA are ‘gagging’ then so is just about every other business/organisation/charity/religion/etc. in the world.

        1. I’ve signed plenty of contracts with companies with codes of conduct, including some requiring security clearance. None made requests about political neutrality, except when working in earshot of customers – and even that was explicitly stated as being because customers usually don’t want to discuss politics. As such, anything short of a discussion/statement not clarified as a personal position (that didn’t breach some other regulation e.g. freedom of speech restrictions in law, or the company dress code) was fine – including visual indicators of political position. In short, they understood that acting the way the FIA is here is arguably illegal (depending on how they end up defining the many parts they haven’t bothered to clarify yet) and very likely to harm the company’s ability to do its job.

          Government/psuedo-government jobs add more precision on distinguishing between personal and corporate-seeming statements, and these vary according to location. Some retail jobs are a lot pickier about political positioning. They’re often also pickier about things like dress code (e.g. company uniforms or precise item-by-item specifications of acceptable attire) and other aspects of the job. However, even they are required to permit significant freedom of personal expression on the job – by law. It’s not like certain parts of the USA, where it’s possible to sack someone who has views one disagrees with provided they’re not on certain subjects.

          S, you are coming across as having very little experience of how most organisations work when they are under the sorts of legal systems common in the places where F1 entities are from (although potentially a lot in places like the fussier end of retail or working for a government unusually worried about the personal/corporate division). You may wish to consider revising your stance – many people have already advised you that your beliefs about this situation are not compatible with the facts.

          1. except when working in earshot of customers – and even that was explicitly stated as being because customers usually don’t want to discuss politics

            Like the FIA are doing with their customers – those of us who watch their racing series, and all those business partners who also don’t wish F1 to be used as a public political tool?

            You may wish to consider revising your stance – many people have already advised you that your beliefs about this situation are not compatible with the facts.

            I’m good, thanks.
            Can you give me an example of a country that doesn’t allow a privately run business to discipline/penalise its workers or cancel contracts when employees/contractors are actively disobeying company rules and codes of conduct, breaching mutually agreed and signed (legal) contract conditions, and/or bringing that business into public disrepute?

  11. “Obligation to accomplish some work of public interest”.

    LOL. Under what sovereign country’s legal mandate is this forced labor being regulated?

    1. Well, potentially under the voluntary sign up to the rules that is (extending) a driver’s license to race in F1. Not criminal but possibly enforceable contract. wonder about EU, (current) UK law though for drivers from those countries and the somewhat glaring different sentiment expressed in the FIA Statues, 1.2 being quoted above,but whatever right.

      1. @bosyber The UK law would say that since the FIA is not a British organisation, then standing could only exist if there was some other British entity involved (admittedly, if there’s a British team, driver or venue involved, that’s entirely plausible!)

    2. Remember Verstappen doing two days of ‘community service’ (within the FIA’s racing community) after his run in with Ocon after Brazil 2018?

    3. It’s nothing new. Drivers will be asked to visit junior races, work with stewards, participate in the FIA’s campaigns, etc. It’s not like they’re going to be asked to sweep the paddock.

    4. @kbdavies France, presumably (since that’s where the FIA is based). As far as I know, it’s legal because the driver is neither an employee nor a contractor for the FIA in respect of their attendance at a race, and because there’s no direct tie between the two. (It would be more problematic if the FIA issued such a penalty to a marshal or other race official). This makes it a question of an event contract rather than an employment contract – the latter is rather stricter than the former.

      Of course, egregious penalties can still be appealed to the court, but the threshold is considerably higher.

  12. So wearing a certain T-shirt could get you a harsher penalty than say, brake testing someone resulting in contact and damage… Hmm, seems about right for the soap opera of Motorsport…

    1. Driving-based reality entertainment TV show

  13. The FIA is essentially setting itself up for a battle it can’t win. It never learns.

    I can’t wait to see the fireworks and public outcry/backlash that would ensue from deducting championship points from a driver, because he highlighted sexism, racism, or homophobia.

    Roll on the season!

  14. Most penalties listed only come for on-track infringements, so seeing them is surprising.
    For example, lap times are only for track limits (& only in competitive sessions since last season), so what particular lap time could a driver lose for a non-driving infringement?

    1. You’re right, it does seem a little abstract – but I can understand why they’ve done it that way.
      They are essentially attaching sporting consequence to the act of derailing the sport’s official media interface – so a direct sporting penalty is a threat that can easily be followed through with.
      Comparably, grid penalties are often applied for things that aren’t directly related to on-track sporting issues either.

      As with all rules and associated penalties – if you don’t want the penalty, don’t break the rule.

      1. So don’t drive in an FIA-sanctioned series (since that also breaks the rule).

    2. @jerejj Easy. They get docked either one from the previous session, or one from the next session, depending on the stewards’ assessment of what best fits the perceived offence.

  15. Good. It was turning into a virtue signalling contest.

    1. But I guess you’d be the first person to scream about free speech when someone is saying something racist somewhere in the world. You seem the type. Frankly anyone supportive of this nonsense is really just a closet racist or misogynist or probably a whole roster of the isms. I mean it’s pretty blatant in every comments section here who’s on the hard right of things.

      1. Indeed. It seems the complaint here is about drivers speaking out about equality, social justice, the environment and similar subjects. They don’t stop races to do it, wearing a t shirt doesn’t impact the track action whatsoever.

        No one (to my knowledge) has been promoting specific political parties.

        So if you’re against the drivers using the platform they’ve earned to speak about those subjects you must be against those subjects themselves.

        1. So if you’re against the drivers using the platform they’ve earned to speak about those subjects you must be against those subjects themselves.

          1) They haven’t ‘earned’ the FIA’s platform. It is a privilege to be able to participate in it – offered only to those who agree to abide by the ISC and all other applicable rules. Participation in it does not give drivers the authority to control it for their own purposes. It’s not theirs
          2) That’s a completely incorrect assumption. It is entirely possible to support those subjects and the change that is being worked for at the same time as being completely against the messaging being placed in things and at times where it does not belong.
          It’s either an embarrassing mistake or a deliberate attack on people whose values may differ to yours.

          Or were you talking their own personal media platforms? Of which they have many with enormous reach, and are completely free to do and say whatever they want, whenever they want, as they are only representing themselves….

    2. @surfermark You do realise the FIA’s stance is itself virtue signalling?

  16. There is a lot of commotion on these new rules and it started ater Ben said F1 wasn’t worth 20 billion. I wonder if he will be around until the end of the season.

    1. I’d bet $20 billion on it….

  17. The penalties for expression seem a lot clearer and more severe than the penalties for exceeding the budget.

    If the sporting regulation is unable to take itself seriously, how do they expect the rest of us to do so?

    They fired Masi for changing the outcome of a championship and kept the results even after the team was found guilty of exceeding the budget.

    I have an idea – why don’t we publicly spank the drivers like the principal used to do in schools? How about a public flogging?

    I can see the spark in Ben Sulayem’s eye as he reads this.

    1. @freelittlebirds Given the penalties given are “anything in the generic list one feels like issuing”, that says a lot about how unclear and potentially non-severe the budget penalties are.

  18. Fully agree with this move. Lately, F1 has become more a social and political platform than a pure sport. These penalties will hopefully ensure that the sport remains a sport rather than a tool to play political games and overthrow governments and cultural systems. One would argue about the right to freedom of speech, but the truth is every driver has been forced to tow a line – voice opinions in line with the trend or risk being treated as a pariah. On certain in 2022 it went too much over the line, particularly when Vettel lashed out at the king or president of some venue country (can’t remember which) for carrying out air displays before the race. Freedom of speech in relation to political and cultural matters needs to be exercised at their respective venues, and not in sport which exists solely for entertainment, the exercise of perfection and, with respect to Formula 1, scientific and technological research.

    1. Did you know that the “clarification” still doesn’t legalise the drivers actually driving, as this could potentially be deemed a non-politically-neutral act (and indeed has been in several countries, not always the obvious ones)?

  19. I see your 20 billion but fold i only have 4 or 6 billion… Cant recall whats in my wallet…

  20. So next time Saudi Arabia’s crown prince presents the trophies, the country gets a one-lap-penalty?

  21. This clarifies exactly nothing.

    Before the statement was made, one would have to have assumed any penalty in 12.4.1 could have been issued. Afterwards, we have to assume any penalty in 12.4.1 could be issued. No guidance has been given about what sort of infraction would match which type (or ballpark) of penalty.

    The same regulations allow stewards to refer any case that they may warrant a penalty outside the range they can award to the ISC. So that’s also a threat that remains, particularly as no guidance about what sort of infraction would merit what sort of penalty has been issued.

    It’s coming across as the FIA pretending to listen but actually carrying on as if nothing had been said, despite its path leading to obvious severe legal problems.

    1. Correction: there is one thing this clarifies.

      If a driver wishes to do anything political (which in the current environment means saying or doing anything, or refraining from doing or saying anything – all have been treated as political actions in various contexts), they must seek permission 4 weeks in advance.

      In that 4-week window is testing and the first race weekend. Some actions have been permitted but not the activities needed to get to the places where those actions have happened. Neither has testing or racing itself been permitted (which, before anyone complains, have been considered political statements by quite a lot of people already). Having several hundred exceptional requests come in late once can hardly be considered exceptional, let alone for the enumerated task-by-task list that would be necessary for the FIA to comply with its own regulations. Also, exceptions can’t last longer than a race weekend, meaning everyone is now required to either skip testing or skip the race (if not both, since it is hard to imagine the FIA being able to turn around that many requests for next week’s testing in the remaining time).

      The FIA now has two choices: rescind the regulation (in letter or in practice), or accept that testing and the first race are lost due to the new regulation.

      1. Neither has testing or racing itself been permitted (which, before anyone complains, have been considered political statements by quite a lot of people already).

        The FIA have permitted it.

  22. some racing fan
    19th February 2023, 21:12

    You know what the drivers, particularly Verstappen, Hamilton or Leclerc should do come Saudi Arabia? Stick the middle finger right in Mr BoneSaw’s face on the podium ceremony, and ensure cameras are there to get photos.

    1. I’d love to see that, and then also see them miss the following event due to their suspensions.

  23. IfImnotverymuchmistaken
    20th February 2023, 10:07

    If I were a driver who didn’t like public appearances, or doing interviews, I’d just keep quiet all the time, or even not show up claiming that I don’t trust myself to not say anything that could be seen as political view.

    If all the drivers refused any and all appearances for this reason, it would be a wonderful circus to watch, but it would also show the FIA how unthinkably stupid (and impossible to police) the whole idea is.

    1. If I were a driver who didn’t like public appearances, or doing interviews,

      You’d either act like Raikkonen, or not be an F1 driver at all.
      Media responsibilities go hand in hand with elite sport.

Comments are closed.