FIA president urges stewards to penalise those who “incite abuse” against officials

Formula 1

Posted on

| Written by

FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem has urged stewards to use new powers to penalise competitors who make negative comments about the sport’s officials.

Ben Sulayem said the FIA is making another revision to the International Sporting Code’s regulations on “misconduct”, which were previously updated in December. In a social media post Ben Sulayem said the latest change had been made in response to research conducted by the FIA’s United Against Online Abuse campaign.

“As part of our ongoing fight against online abuse, recent investigations have shown that there is a direct link between negative comments from drivers and team members and increased hate directed towards officials on social media,” he said.

“At the last World Motor Sport Council, members approved a change to the definition of misconduct within the ISC following incidents in which high profile members of our sport have made statements towards officials that incite abuse. This change will ensure further support for the FIA officials and volunteers who dedicate their time to improving our sport, keeping it safe and fair.”

The last revision to the ISC’s “misconduct” clause came after the stewards used it to penalise Sergio Perez for criticising them at last year’s Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. Perez had remarked “the stewards are a joke” on his radio in reaction to the five-second time penalty he received for colliding with Lando Norris in the race.

The revised clause has since been used to penalise Yuki Tsunoda for using offensive language on his radio when he was held up by rival drivers in the pits during qualifying for the Austrian Grand Prix. He was fined €40,000 (£33,900), half of which was suspended.

Although Tsunoda’s comments were not directed at officials, other drivers and team members have criticised them and their decisions in recent years, and sometimes attracted penalties.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Perez’s Red Bull team principal Christian Horner was given a formal warning in 2021 for blaming a “rogue marshal” when Max Verstappen was penalised for failing to slow for double waved yellow flags. Former Haas team principal Guenther Steiner was fined for insulting stewards in 2019 and reprimanded over a similar incident in 2023.

Fernando Alonso called the Miami Grand Prix stewards ‘incompetent and unprofessional’ in 2022 and this year alleged FIA officials are more likely to give penalties to Spanish drivers than other nationalities.

The FIA president is keen to see stewards use the new powers they have been given to penalise competitors who make statements which may provoke online abuse.

“Our stewards must be prepared to show strength when combatting this form of abuse, and they have my full support, and the support of our International Sporting Code, when making their decisions,” said Ben Sulayem. “I urge them to show that the FIA will not allow abuse of any kind within our sport.”

Ben Sulayem previously claimed 75% of athletes are “bombarded with threats and hate online.”

In addition to the revised rules on “misconduct”, the FIA has toughened up other parts of its rule book since Ben Sulayem’s election in late 2021. In 2022 it banned competitors from making any political statements at events and the following year the FIA increased the maximum fine Formula 1 stewards may hand out at a grand prix from €250,000 to €1 million (£870,000).

Miss nothing from RaceFans

Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Formula 1

Browse all Formula 1 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.

55 comments on “FIA president urges stewards to penalise those who “incite abuse” against officials”

  1. notagrumpyfan
    14th August 2024, 12:46

    Fully support fighting (online) abuse, but it already becomes a bit more questionable if including ‘inciting’ without clear definitions or measurements how to define that.

    But to me it seems more an action by a person/organisation which cannot handle criticism or even feedback.

    1. Your second response is the appropriate one. The first one is how we’ve been conditioned to respond to anything like this these days no matter how absurd.

      This rule is especially ridiculous because no driver has encouraged abuse of officials. And the definition for “incite” could basically be anything. This is yet another move toward the now “investigation for anything” movement. Put a wheel in the pit lane when other cars have lined up: investigation! Did the driver not follow the stewards instructions for exactly where to place their car while they were trying not to crash into the wall? Investigation! Did the driver unknowingly pass the safety car line at the wrong time just as another car was emerging from the pit lane? Investigation! Did a driver try to pass another car? Investigation!

      1. Toward the new*

        1. I agree with you both. Allow live radio communications to be shared with the public, expect things said in the heat of the moment. It’s part and parcel of sportspeople pushing themselves to the limit. And Ben Sulayem to the limit too, it seems.

          1. A driver would never say they will throw the stewards and their puppy down a well. They can learn to not say they are dumb, stupid or something else too. It has nothing to do with being in the middle of a race, it’s just a matter of what is considered acceptable and acting accordingly.

      2. Yes to this and so no to this agenda.

    2. online abuse and hate speech are just codewords for political censorship. people who are afraid to read words on a screen need to take a break from themselves. the fia is scared of being exposed for its apparent agenda, so is using code/trigger words to convince small minded people who are easier to bias through fear. people like that make their living keeping people small minded and ignorant, and deserve very little respect.

      this isnt the samething as doxing, spying, or stalking (in real life).

      1. Perfectly said! That’s the real reason.

      2. Lol, what? This isn’t 4chan. :)

  2. Any comment can “incite” abuse. Abusive people will find reasons to make their annonymous comments on twitter…

    I suspect what MBS wants is drivers, principals and everyone involved to just stop making comments about the stewards, kinda like WEC teams are forbidden to comment on the BoP.

    1. Abusive people will find reasons to make their anonymous comments on twitter…

      And Neurotic attention seekers will find reasons to claim they have been abused and offended no matter what is posted.

      It’s the world we live in today :(

    2. @fer-no65 Under some circumstances, silence can “incite” abuse too. One would have to be very circumspect to avoid worsening the very problem Ben seeks to solve. I’m not convinced Ben fully understands the complexity of the fight he’s engaged in, despite his noble attempt to do so.

      1. I’m also going to add that a lot of people consider some of the things Ben has done since getting elected to have resulted in more abuse of officials than anything else that has happened in F1 during that timeframe. He runs the risk of someone saying, “Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander”.

  3. The government… governing body is always right comrades.

    1. double plus good, that.

  4. Coventry Climax
    14th August 2024, 13:19

    There’s a simple, single word to characterize the direction rules making has taken: Derailed.

    It’s saying more about the F1 and FiA officials themselves than it does about those supposedly transgressing.

    1. Which driver told you to say this? An investigation needs to be launched.

      1. Coventry Climax
        14th August 2024, 18:46

        I won’t tell you.
        Who’s to say I’m not with one of the teams, in whichever role?

        1. Your comment still will be investigated

        2. See! I’m a great investigator! You’ve already revealed there might be a wider conspiracy afoot.

  5. If someone says something in a press conference or to a journalist then sure, penalise them. Drivers should be allowed to say whatever they want over the radio though. Anyone who has played sports has complained about a ref to their team mates at some point in time. You calm down after the incident and may think differently but in that moment, you’re angry and you react.

    The drivers aren’t giving a mid-race interview. They’re talking to their team.

    1. You want to penalise a driver for voicing their opinion or concern? I can recommend a great place for a holiday, it lays north of south-korea.

    2. YEah, if anything, they should then go after F1 for PLAYING such a comment on the world feed.

      Sure, I get taht it’s important to prevent anyone from “going after” stewards and officials – I would rate the Horner thing about blaming a Marshall for Max’ infringement worthy of investigating and penalising for this.

      But to me it seems that many steps Ben Sulayem has taken are more focussed on control of any and every expression of especially drivers but also the teams (the ban on “political” expression, the sudden crackdown on jewelry, this …) making me feel like a return of the Mosley habit at the FIA where any critique of him could end a team up for “bringing the sport into disrepute”.

  6. Saying Masi made a mistake that determined the outcome of the 2021 championship resulted in inciting online abuse towards Masi. The FIA did that themselves. “Incite” is a poor use of words here that is grey enough to mean whatever they want it to mean whenever they want it.

    1. Spot on!

      You have anointing on you.

      Now, who is to publish FIA and its officials for incitement?

    2. WOW! They did that to themselves, you said. SO you agree with online abuse? As long as you agree with the abuser. Thankyou for exposing yourself.

  7. Ever wonder why there is so much online abuse? Just read most of the comments above, much of the commentators have no understanding what abuse even is. Online abuse is just an “opinion” or a “concern”. And what do these sorts of people do, when online abuse is mentioned? They post online abuse.

    My impression is that normal people do not want to spend their free time in such an environment. Why should you want to have discussions with such people? This leads to forums being taken over by these people, who will then think online abuse is part of a normal discussion. Which sort of makes their reactions understandable, when something is done against online abuse.

    1. Indeed, and Twitter is a nice example of this in real time. If you ditch all norms and start tolerating everything that comes into people’s minds, soon enough you’ll be left with only the fringe goofs that can’t control themselves. Everyone else has no interest in being a part of that crowd and will leave.

    2. abuse is transgression against someones boundaries, simply put. its goal is to exploit that entity by breaking those boundaries.

      what the fia is saying, is they own our minds/words/opinions, that we have no right to point out the obvious. this in itself points to an org who believes they have an existing abusive relationships with rich and jane, or the drivers not u der their employment.

    3. @uzsjgb

      The issue is that people in power have shown time and again that they don’t actually just want to get rid of swearing and personal attacks, but also opinions that are critical of them and their organizations.

  8. BLS (@brightlampshade)
    14th August 2024, 18:56

    The FIA have never been wrong about anything, and even if they were then we shouldn’t be allowed to flag this up

    It just feels like MBS is the sort of guy to end his statements with “FACTS” and then acted all shocked when he’s questioned.

    1. Not being able to criticize officials or competitors without resorting to racial slurs (Verstappen), insults (Pérez), pejoratives (Tsunoda) or demeaning insinuations (Horner) sounds more like a culture problem at Red Bull than the FIA not being open to criticism.

      1. And here you are abusing Redbull, YOU are the perfect example of someone who agrees with online abuse, as long as it is targeted at the right people, rrright??
        Racial slurs by Verstappen? Please point me to any evidence of that! And you really think that a redbull driver is the only one who ever used an swearword??
        How come you are so obsessed with Redbull? Are you still traumatized over 2021?? SO you take any chance to demean them, is that all to you??

    2. I feel it’s a bit short sighted to pin it all on him. If someone else had been in charge it likely would have been the same or very similar. It’s also the way a select bunch are deciding to go with running societies. Wef, agenda 2030, and the majority of governments that subscribe. This isn’t just an F1 issue, it’s much bigger than that and not an accident.

    3. You’re wrong. FACTS!

      -Speaking as proxy for MBS

  9. Statistically, competing while female without saying anything results in more abuse than most of the things F1 drivers say (though any driver statement involving an identity-based epithet is typically an exception). On a strict reading, the rationale provided by Ben would result in women being restricted from racing in high-profile motorsport simply out of a fear of trolls and told to stick to marshalling (where women routinely participate with the same amount of criticism as men).

    It does have to be said that officials in many sports are seeing an increase in abuse. It would have been nice to have seen Ben Sulayem put more emphasis on that angle, given that the actions he’s promoting today stand a chance of actually protecting officials (as well as being a useful source of revenue for the FIA). By “officials”, I don’t just mean the stewards who sit in F1 offices around the world. I also mean officials in less-known series, who benefit from the people whose sport they facilitate not learning bad habits from watching TV. It may even encourage more people to start officiating, which would help counter the perennial recruitment crisis at grassroots level. Remember that even at F1 level, the stewards are volunteers and are often wrestling an obtuse regulatory ruleset as well as competitors high on adrenaline and sometimes anger.

    1. If you believe those ‘statistics,’ I have a bridge to sell you.

      1. It’s true. They do. However, the safe space culture movement that would cite data like that is only leading to polarization and more online abuse.

    2. Sarcastic, slow clap.

  10. It is time for a new governing body.

    1. F1’s lack of competition is its own worst problem

      1. That and the FIA having some legal claim to the F1 copyright somehow. I’m pretty sure they’ve established that Formula 1 could not be raced with another sanctioning body. And thus they have no accountability or potential competition. I mean, in a way, that could be a good thing since it means they also can’t be forced in to making unethical decisions just for the sake of keeping the series (though it hasn’t stopped them from doing just that).

        1. But the latter is exactly what they do through their vehicle called Liberty Global.

  11. I hope the censorship hits the people who cheer this kind of rubbish on. But it won’t because they never have anything controversial, or interesting to say. If you feel abused by this sentiment, then you’re part of the problem!

    1. +1

      You could be sure it’ll hit any whose texts or emails are leaked.

  12. Ah yes, the ruling class guy thinks criticism is bad. I’m shocked I tell you.

    1. Didn’t even think of the irony a Saudi man whose name is literally MBS calling for censorship. You could make about a hundred irony smoothies from this.

  13. Literal translation: make mistakes do stupid things, but no one can criticize you. That’s a very stupid approach.

  14. Throughout history, we see those in power take advantage of the ideology that is popular among the elites to remove accountability, criticism and challenges to their power in general. This is just the latest iteration, where the woke ideology is used to oppress people.

  15. It is the FOM who chooses to broadcast radio’s which are not very positive about stewards decisions.
    In the case of anyone vs. a British driver, the Sky and press bias is sometimes unbearable. Not to mention a certain principal with a color in his name that keeps on raving against a driver.

    A lot of the online hate is a bit self-inflicted, not to mention the FIA-president showing up every time to steal someones thunder (first victories Norris/Piastri, Lewis Silverstone victory) by showing up and usually getting in the way.

  16. Criticism is verboten everywhere in the West now.

    1. Take that back! I am from the West and I am now deeply offended that you’ve attacked my people’s culture. I need a safe space!

  17. More FIA cowardice. Prohibit threats of violence of course , but otherwise- man up.

Comments are closed.