Max Verstappen, Red Bull, Singapore, 2024

F1 drivers face bans and points deductions if they break FIA ‘misconduct’ rules

Formula 1

Posted on

| Written by

The FIA has revealed its guidelines to stewards on how they should punish drivers for actions it regards as “misconduct”.

The governing body has taken the step two months after Formula 1 drivers called for “transparency” over how it used the money raised through fines levied against them for swearing or using offensive language.

The FIA increased the maximum fine stewards could issue to €1 million in 2023. The guidelines issued ahead of the 2025 season detailed tiered fines for drivers at different levels of the FIA’s championship. F1 drivers will pay the most of all.

Last year Yuki Tsunoda was fined €40,000, half of which was suspended, for using an ableist slur while speaking to his team on his radio. The message was not censored by Formula One Management on F1 TV. Charles Leclerc was fined €10,000, again half of which was suspended, for swearing during an FIA press conference in Mexico.

Max Verstappen was ordered to perform public service for the FIA in Rwanda after he swore during the pre-race press conference at the Singapore Grand Prix. A furious Verstappen responded by refusing to speak at length in several following FIA press conferences.

The FIA said the following guideline penalties will be used for future infringements, but noted the stewards have the power to take mitigating or aggravating factors into consideration. The list of penalties includes fines and, for repeated infringements, bans and points deductions.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

FIA guidelines on fines and punishments for driver “misconduct”

Regulations First offence Second offence Third offence
Article 12.2.1.f ISC: Any words, deeds or writings that have caused moral injury or loss to the FIA, its bodies, its members or its executive officers, and more generally on the interest of motor sport and on the values defended by the FIA. €10,000 €20,000 plus one-month suspension –which is suspended. €30,000 plus one-month suspension plus deduction of championship points.
Article 12.2.1.l ISC: Any Misconduct. Misconduct is defined under Article 20 of the ISC. €10,000 €20,000 plus one-month suspension –which is suspended. €30,000 plus one-month suspension plus deduction of championship points.
Article 12.2.1.n ISC: Any public incitement to violence or hatred. €10,000 €20,000 plus one-month suspension – which is suspended. €30,000 plus one-month suspension plus deduction of championship points.
Article 12.2.1.o ISC: The general making and display of political, religious and personal statements or comments notably in violation of the general principle of neutrality promoted by the FIA under its Statutes, unless previously approved in writing by the FIA for International Competitions, or by the relevant ASN for National Competitions within their jurisdiction. €10,000 plus public apology and repudiation of comments. Fine may be suspended. €20,000 plus public apology and repudiation of comments plus one month suspension – which is suspended. €30,000 plus public apology and repudiation of comments plus one month suspension plus deduction of championship points.
Article 12.2.1.p ISC: Failure to comply with the instructions of the FIA regarding the appointment and participation of persons during official ceremonies at any competition counting towards a FIA championship. €15,000 €30,000 plus suspension of access to Reserved Area(s) of event for next event. €45,000 plus suspension of access to Reserved Area(s) of event for six months plus deduction of championship points.

The following multipliers will be applied to the above fines based on which series the incident occurs in:

  • Level 1 (International Series): Multiple of one (Article 12.2.1.o is not applicable to International Series)
  • Level 2 (FIA regional championships and FIA cups): Multiple of two
  • Level 3 (FIA world championships, except FIA Formula 1 World Championship): Multiple of three
  • Level 4 (FIA Formula 1 world championship): Multiple of four

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.

84 comments on “F1 drivers face bans and points deductions if they break FIA ‘misconduct’ rules”

  1. This is truly worrying.

    1. Why? The drivers have always been required to attend the official ceremony. They’ve always had to abide by the International Sporting Code, and there’s always been a catch-all rule that forbids participants from bringing the sport into disrepute. A €10,000 fine sounds like a lot, but in F1 it really isn’t.

      And I thought people wanted clear rules and clear penalties rather than arbitrary judgments and inconsistent fines? Well, here they are.

      1. El Pollo Loco
        23rd January 2025, 0:19

        I don’t get your dogged defense of MBS. I am sure his worries do not center on attendance of the FIA ceremony.

        1. It’s not about the president as these things aren’t decided by him alone. And quite a lot of the criticism is in bad taste, and distinctly different from criticism of previous presidents for obvious reasons. It’s not a good look. Some may not like it, but the FIA is a global organization in which people from all over the world get to have a say.

          1. MichaelN, why are you trying to be so coy by throwing out claims that “quite a lot of the criticism is in bad taste, and distinctly different from criticism of previous presidents for obvious reasons”? If you’re going to make those sorts of accusations about posters here, then have the courage to make them properly, rather than snidely trying to slide them past the posters here.

            Furthermore, no – the criticism comes because he is seen as an arrogant, self centred bully that fires people if they don’t tell him what he wants to hear and has rammed through changes to the ethics and audit committees that even you were unable to defend.

          2. anon,

            Casually associating Ben Sulayem with beheadings, burquas and sharia is in what taste?

            One might associate the McLaren CEO with the most rabid aspects of the current US president, and say things like: “So you don’t like Red Bull, Zak? Why don’t you incite a riot, then, hoping they’ll hang Horner? Beause that’s what Americans in general do, don’t they?”

            Would that be in good taste, too?

          3. Furthermore, no – the criticism comes because he is seen as an arrogant, self centred bully that fires people if they don’t tell him what he wants to hear and has rammed through changes to the ethics and audit committees that even you were unable to defend.

            That must have been a prerequisite for the FIA president’s job. Compared to his predecessors : Balestre, Mosley, and Todt, MBS actually comes across as a more “likeable” figure. MichaelN do have a point.

          4. El Pollo Loco
            23rd January 2025, 12:25

            asz, people make casual associations between negative American stereotypes and Liberty as an entity and its execs + people like Zak Brown. No one seems to have an issue with it. Criticism is rarely tasteful. The fact that MBS has authoritarian tendencies + shares a name with someone famous for gruesome policies makes these satirical references inevitable. Just how nobody seems to be able to discuss Mike Crack without making juvenile puns, the MBS cracks are too obvious to avoid.

          5. believe it or not, it’s about control. And if you can’t control the driver’s mouths, you cannot guarantee sponsors will be happy, which cuts out a lot of the potential upside of big league investors who want absolute control over their products and how they are showcased.

            One of the downsides of being a professional anything, that is engaged in sponsorship deals, is that you have to behave ‘a certain way’.

            It’s all about money, the new trend of totalitarian capitalism that is beginning to reshape modern politics and consumer interfaces … And control.

          6. @asz

            Casually associating Ben Sulayem with beheadings, burquas and sharia is in what taste?

            The same level of taste as MBS with his negative references to rappers and black popular culture.
            Respect is supposed to be a two-way street.

            With regard to the table of fines – it appears to be exactly what people have been asking for:- known, scaled penalties

          7. @Tifoso1989 likeable?

            Maybe if you are a fan of M. il figlio…

          8. M2X,
            No need for this tasteless joke of yours. I have been critical of MBS in this proper forum. You missed reading the quotation mark surrounding the word “likeable”.

          9. @Tifoso1989
            MBS behavior has been touted as that of an autocrate. A disrespectful autocrate, that has been touted by as such the GPDA and by his actions within the FIA.

            “The joke” is very much on the nose. Only fans of horrific autocracy, a system and culture that has been seen as immoral and unethical since the enlightment, can consider the MbS’ of this world as likeable.

      2. It’s actually $40,000 for the first offence (which the stewards can now suspend), because the base rate of $10,000 is automatically multiplied by 4 due to being F1 rather than another series.

        This is, if anything, less clear or consistent than the previous policy. Especially given that the FIA has shown a poor understanding of what causes moral injury, and has shown no willingness to scrutinise its own senior staff’s conduct in this field (if Mohammed Ben Sulayem had been required to follow these regulations, he’d have got himself a suspension of 2 months already – one for the second offence activating and another for the third offence).

        1. @alianora-la-canta it’s particularly since, in other FIA series, we’ve seen complaints that the FIA’s stewards have taken excessively broad interpretations of the concept of “moral loss to the FIA or to motorsport in general” to shut down any sort of complaints they don’t like.

          A few months ago, for example, Ogier was very cross that the FIA was threatening to penalise drivers who raised safety concerns during the Acropolis rally on the grounds with fines for causing “moral loss” to the FIA (because the FIA felt that questioning whether they were managing the risks correctly was damaging to their reputation and thus caused “moral loss”).

          1. As both of you highlight, the biggest issue is not with having a system in place to punish drivers for misbehaviour (although indeed that mechanism has already shown its weakspots and inconsistencies) but that the arbiters of this have been shown to abuse it to punish criticism (including well founded and important cases) of the FIA itself and criteria seem to be far to arbitrary to be deemed a solid mechanism.

          2. @bascb it would also appear that the member organisations of the FIA were being restricted from being able to discuss or criticise the more recent measures.

            It seems that some member organisations have privately been complaining that they were not told that these changes were being introduced, nor were they being given any opportunity to debate or discuss the measures in any detail – instead, they seem to have been sent an electronic voting form with relatively little notice that there was any sort of vote coming up.

            In that respect, quite a few of the FIA’s own members are also rather upset by this whole affair and several of them wanted the vote to have been held after the next World Motorsport Council meeting, which would have allowed them to discuss the measures.

  2. El Pollo Loco
    22nd January 2025, 21:52

    Please, someone get this guy to stand down before his power and money grab gets any more ridiculous. How on earth can public incitement to violence or hatred be pegged at $10,000 compared with failure to comply with FIA ceremonies costing $15,000. Is this a joke? Its obviously a silencing instrument from the new nanny state of F1. From an unelected President desperate to cling on to power. For goodness sake employ a ‘professional’, paid, competent, President for our sport. Utter vote of no-confidence from me.

    A good comment another user posted on another site.

    1. Not really, to suggest the FIA president acts a) on his own and b) is unelected is both patently false.

      1. El Pollo Loco
        23rd January 2025, 0:22

        Unelected by F1 stake holders. As for the FIA “election,” half the delegates who elect him are from countries with no motorsport However, that was not the part of the comment I found compelling.

        1. F1 is just one series among many, and these rules apply to all FIA series (with the fines being adjusted). So yeah, they don’t get to vote. Neither do the team principals in the Dakar Rally or the WEC.

          And indeed, some countries don’t have any meaningful motorsport to speak of. But then again, the FIA isn’t only doing sport – and part of the current administration’s platform is to promote sports in such countries.

          1. MichaelN, that is not the case. They only apply to some series (national series are exempt, most international series don’t have to follow the political neutrality one despite that being the only one the FIA is legally required to enforce out of the ones mentioned in this article, and only F1 gets the highest penalties).

          2. The newly added Appendix B is merely a guideline for possible fines, the stewards are under no obligation to follow them. And the rules themselves are still in the Code.

            But indeed, the guidelines won’t be applicable to all series, and there is an exception made for fines for violations of the ‘neutrality’ article for low level series. Probably because there’s no media attention. Nevertheless, as the Appendix notes, the stewards retain the right to decide what penalty to give for any breach of the Code. Something like that Russian kid making dubious gestures will still very much be a violation of the Code that the stewards can follow up on.

            Ultimately, way too much is made out of this. The FIA has to juggle a lot of different wishes here, and it’s only to be expected that the wishes of the hosts (them being FIA members) are given additional consideration. It’s easy to say ‘just let them talk who cares about these F1 drivers’, but hosts have put a lot of money into this and they want everything to go smoothly. It is what it is.

          3. You say

            Ultimately, way too much is made out of this.

            I would say the opposite is true MichaelN.

            The simple facts you highlight about how arbitrary and unclear the limits as well as the penalties are show that this is an instrument perfectly suited for potential abuse. Almost all cases where it was used, it was shown to be baffling, inconsistent and rather often misused to punish critique.

          4. The simple facts you highlight about how arbitrary and unclear the limits as well as the penalties are show that this is an instrument perfectly suited for potential abuse.

            The obvious conclusion to this line of thinking is that any system of rules can be exploited in much the same way. They are all designed with some flexibility for good reason.
            The rules are not the problem, humanity is the problem. You can’t blame the FIA for that.

      2. MichaelN, in this case, there are reports indicating that Sulayem does seem to have acted by himself when it came to pushing this measure through.

        Most of the FIA’s own members seem to have had no idea that this was being considered, with the vote being called at short notice in a manner that meant there was no opportunity for those members to discuss the measures in any meaningful way (and some do not appear to have even had the opportunity to finish reading the proposals before being asked to vote on them).

        His own members are, therefore, becoming increasingly annoyed that events such as meetings of the World Motorsport Council, where they would have opportunities to debate upcoming proposals, are being bypassed by the use of virtual meetings, or e-votes at short notice on unannounced measures to stop members from being able to discuss measures in a public setting with each other.

        Indeed, part of the World Motorsport Council appears to have voted against this measures as a protest at Sulayem trying to bypass institutions such as the WMSC to push measures through without consultation or debate by it’s members.

    2. It would be more accurate to say the FIA President is elected and on an election campaign. (It’s not clear anyone is even contesting Sulayem for the role yet, but I guess he sees no reason to take chances on that point). However, getting an appointed president isn’t an option due to the structure of the FIA – it has to be elected by some cross-section of the FIA’s membership (be it this particular cross-section, or a different one via a reconfiguration of the FIA’s Statutes).

  3. Yes (@come-on-kubica)
    22nd January 2025, 22:25

    I thought Balestre, Mosley and Todt were awful. This guy has idea on how to run the FIA. Good at earning the ‘votes’ to keep him in charge.

  4. gregorianfarts
    22nd January 2025, 22:27

    The teams should walk away like they nearly did in 2008/9…

  5. Holding races in countries that have abysmal human rights records = just fine.

    Saying a “bad” word in a press conference = you get fined.

    1. F1 will go where they get paid to perform their show. It’s not their business to change the world.

      And while this is a noble idea, it’s not practical. How does one establish the list of said countries? By popular vote at the UN? Pew Research regularly does a comprehensive global survey of attitudes towards different countries. And let’s just say the results are not exactly a glowing endorsement of the countries that like to pat themselves on the back.

      When you’re putting on a show costing dozens of millions it’s important that there aren’t any unnecessary distractions that will upset either the hosts or the corporate sponsors. Drivers can always start a punk band and be cool and rebellious there. Just not on the F1 weekend. That’s all.

      1. well if it is not their business to change the world, why should then these rules be placed??? It is all about control. FIA wants full control and more money. That is what BMS is saying from day 1.

      2. El Pollo Loco
        24th January 2025, 10:12

        (M)orally (B)ankrupt (S)porting for life! You’re so keen to defend MBS you’re even resorting to a new strain of about’ism. I’m sorry, but there are more than enough countries to fill the F1 calendar to avoid countries with things like an on going genocide, capital punishment for teenagers and ongoing invasions of neighboring countries purely for reasons of empire. So, this argument doesn’t hold water.

      3. El Pollo Loco
        24th January 2025, 10:17

        Morally Bankrupt Sporting for life! You’re so keen to defend MBS you’re even resorting to a new strain of about’ism. I’m sorry, but there are more than enough countries to fill the F1 calendar to avoid countries with things like an on going (rhymes with menocide), capital punishment for teenagers and ongoing invasions of neighboring countries purely for reasons of empire. So, this argument doesn’t hold water.

        1. The FIA doesn’t decide F1’s calendar, though. That’s Liberty’s game – and the money is exactly why they go where they do.
          Of all the things to try to pin on the FIA President, that’s 100% not one of them.

          1. El Pollo Loco
            24th January 2025, 16:46

            Well, that’s wrong considering he’s been instrumental in spearheading the effort to go Rwanda, but I wasn’t pinning the calendar choices on MBS. I was explaining why the argument going to ethically compromised countries makes no sense. However, MBS is clearly a man who would show zero objection to going to these places.

          2. If F1 does go to Rwanda, it’ll be entirely because they’ve coughed up enough money to satisfy Liberty.
            The FIA’s involvement starts and stops at certifying the circuit as Grade 1 and ready for use.

            If you think MBS is so terrible for (apparently) wanting F1 to go to a (subjectively) terrible place, what is your opinion on the actual decision-makers and teams/drivers who receive all the benefits of doing so?
            Typically without the slightest bit of hesitation in accepting all that money, and with hardly a peep about things that don’t relate to the actual event itself – at least not until they have left the country.
            Almost seems like they are at least as bad as the nasty FIA man…

          3. If you think MBS is so terrible for (apparently) wanting F1 to go to a (subjectively) terrible place,

            Subjectively?
            Is it really so many years since the rivers were a flowing mortuary that people have forgotten?

          4. El Pollo Loco
            28th January 2025, 6:51

            S’s arguments are so weak and full of straw men they’re not even worth addressing.

  6. Hopefully the drivers unite together to retaliate. This won’t do. Ben Sulayem must be eliminated from his position asap. He’s already done permanent damage with all the firings of FIA officials, and these moral laws that don’t belong to the Western world.

  7. Sharia law coming to F1?

    1. Hardly. My employer has a “Code Of Conduct” that employees have to adhere to. This is no different (F1 drivers get fined, employees at best get a warning, at worst lose their job)

      1. Exactly, these guys are present at an official FIA event. They have to play by the rules.

        Besides, F1 drivers tend to be young 20 somethings who’ve barely had any formal education because of their unrelenting focus on karting. And now they’re millionaires huddled away in a tax haven. They’re not exactly go-to people for interesting comments on world affairs.

      2. El Pollo Loco
        23rd January 2025, 0:29

        Are you familiar with the word hyperbole or the term tongue in cheek? It may not be Sharia law, but everything MBS is doing is a naked attempt to make it impossible to criticize the FIA and more precisely, himself. If this guy was acting in good faith, half of the FIA’s leadership wouldn’t have resigned or been fired over the span of a few months.

        As for code of conduct, are you serious? When was the last time we had a problem with how drivers were conducting themselves? Basically never let alone recently. This is just MBS’ knee jerk reaction to criticism that gets in the way of him behaving like a dictator. He doesn’t want accountability. He’s happy to expend time and effort to shut drivers up yet refuses to reveal what happens with the millions of dollars in fines drivers and teams rack up during each season.

        1. I have had problems with driver conduct in the past. That said, most of my problems with driver conduct would not have been improved by FIA intervention (the concept of using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut comes to mind).

      3. some racing fan
        23rd January 2025, 0:47

        That should be up to the teams to manage themselves, not the FIA to manage the teams. Period. These are rules applied by someone who doesn’t believe in democracy and is corrupt to the core. MBS has to go.

    2. @janedone There is no possibility of sharia law coming to the FIA. Unlike hoovering up as much money as possible for FIA use (which is what all these large fines are intended to achieve), there’s no popular support within the FIA for a framework significantly different to the current one.

  8. F1 needs to separate from the FIA. Now that MSB is in charge, this is rapidly going down hill. He needs to be ousted or F1 needs to get away from the entire structure. They ARE the cash cow and he needs to be removed from the equation, one way or another.

    1. @daved

      F1 needs to separate from the FIA

      If F1 ever breaks away from the FIA it wouldn’t have world championship status and the F1 champion wouldn’t be classed as an F1 world champion or get his name added to the championship trophy.

      It may seem like a small detail but not been officially part of the FIA world championship lineage and therefore having drivers not added to the official world championship stat book would take away from the prestige of achieving those things.

      Right now you win the F1 world championship your name is added to the championship trophy alongside all the greats from the past. That matters and if at the end your just having your name added to a new blank trophy that has no prestige or history it’s just not going to feel as important. Especially when you have drivers who got into the sport to be put up next to their childhood hero as Lewis Hamilton has with Senna for example, Him winning the championship and having his name on a trophy with Ayrton meant a lot to him.

      And just speaking for myself winning a blank F1 championhip trophy simply wouldn’t mean as much as winning the f1 world championship trophy that has that lineage, prestige & history.

      It’s exactly what happened with the CART/IRL split. The winners/champions who couldn’t be put up alongside the greats from the past in the stats just ended up with none of it feeling as important.

      The US 500 was supposed to be CART’s Indy 500 with it’s own new trophy yet nobody cared just like nobody cared about the IRL champion winning a championship trophy that didn’t have the named of the past greats on it. It just all felt completely irrelevant and ended up with a decade of 500 mile race winners and series champions who nobody cared about as they weren’t seen as true winners/champions.

      1. Besides could F1 take up every responsibility the FIA currently holds?

        One of the main reasons standalone non championship races ended was because they didn’t have the resources to do it all themselves and that was also always the key factor that halted breakaway series in the past. The teams & FOM didn’t want to pay for and organise everything they currently get from the FIA.

        1. El Pollo Loco
          23rd January 2025, 0:31

          They could take care of what the FIA does without issue. However, it’s all a moot point because F1 is not F1 without the name. And therefore the FIA has stranglehold on F1.

          1. Yes, F1 has value as a brand, but the value is mostly build on the teams and drivers and the attachment the viewers have to these. Besides, FOM controls every major outlet for F1. They have all the subscribers to the YouTube channel, the Twitter feed, they own the domains and the video subscription service and, of course, they have all the TV deals.

            So lets say FOM would break away from FIA (they won’t, but hypothetically). They would rename their brand, make a new logo that closely resembles their old one (two letters, same red), do an ad campaign maybe. They’d rename their social media accounts. Forward the domain names to the new one. The TV stations would obviously run ads on their own channel ahead of the new season. Show some action, show the drivers and the cars, and refer to the new name.

            Would anyone really care? Would people really stop watching the new thing and watch the “new” F1 with other teams and drivers. Mind you, FIA would have to set up the entire commercial side. They’d have to make deals with tracks, TV stations, figure out all the logistics FOM does, set up and entire broadcast system (or sell the rights to another party) to produce the feed, etc.

            FOM is definitely in control there, a split would mean a bit of effort for them, but no real impact to their operation. They’d have to hire race directors and stewards, etc, and set up a rulebook. But all of that pales into the mountain of work FIA would need to do to replace the FIA. The FOM could be up and running in between seasons and be ready in March for a new season. The FIA would probably need at least a year (probably more) to get up and running. By then, the “F1” brand will hold not nearly as much value as the new FOM brand would.

          2. @ideals it would also require the FIA to be somewhat careful about how it set up those commercial terms, given it would have to avoid violating the previous agreements with the EU about requiring the commercial operations of a sport to be separate from the governing body.

            Whilst the odds are, as you note, very low that a formal split would occur, it is worth noting that there are cases of motorsport bodies choosing to walk out of the FIA and enjoying success. A significant chunk of Australian motorsport is run by an independent organisation, the Australian Auto Sport Alliance, because they objected to the way that Motorsport Australia, the FIA affiliated body, was running Australian motorsport activities.

          3. A significant chunk of Australian motorsport is run by an independent organisation, the Australian Auto Sport Alliance, because they objected to the way that Motorsport Australia, the FIA affiliated body, was running Australian motorsport activities.

            I would hardly call any of that a success.
            And it’s not solely about MA – it very much about Supercars either trying to buy every local competing series/event or simply squeeze it out of media and sponsorship space.

            Australia’s highest level open wheel series has been shut down as a result, and the entire fleet of cars and parts are up for sale.

            It should also be noted that the Australian racing scene has had a reasonable level of regulatory competition for a long time – a couple of decades at least – and I’d say that MA is probably in the strongest position it’s ever been in, in terms of quantity and stature of affiliate series at least.
            Most of the friction occurs for the same two reasons it does with the FIA directly – money and control. The more corporate racing has become, the more the power struggle has affected everything.

      2. Correction: the F1 world champion in a breakaway situation would still be a world champion. Just not an FIA world champion. There would be no rule preventing the driver receiving a new trophy that cited the pre-split F1 champions as predecessor champions.

        The bigger problem is that the EU currently recognises an FIA monopoly within its territory on safety grounds. Notwithstanding a different organisation potentially being able to be better at safety than the FIA, it would still need to convince the EU of that before it could compete on EU race tracks. I’m not sure what F1’s reaction would be if it was told the only European track it was allowed to use was Monaco…

        1. Notwithstanding a different organisation potentially being able to be better at safety than the FIA, it would still need to convince the EU of that before it could compete on EU race tracks.

          It would be interesting to see how many of the current FIA staff would jump ship to the new body, and how many former staff would “rejoin” the F1 circus by working for the new body.

          I think people need to bear in mind how many have left because of MBS. I think any new body would have a race director candidate lined up very swiftly. Pick a position, I’d lay good odds that they could fill it quickly.

          I’m not sure what F1’s reaction would be if it was told the only European track it was allowed to use was Monaco…

          and Silverstone (possibly be the only benefit of the PITA Brexit thing)

  9. Freedom of speech comes with a price it seems. But still at least they can keep their heads, for now.

    1. El Pollo Loco
      23rd January 2025, 0:34

      Careful, you may get banned if you allude to how the MBS takes care of his dissidents.

  10. some racing fan
    23rd January 2025, 0:45

    This is totally wrong and the teams should boycott all GPs until these rules are changed. This is authoritarianism and it does not work in a Western sport

  11. They govern motorsport, not human behaviour, and the very idea that they are in a position to judge speech demonstrates a supreme arrogance. If the FIFA were to put a microphone on Messi and imposed rules on how he has to communicate with his teammates, would that have anything to do with football? If a driver says something unethical, it’s we the people who should judge him, not the FIA’s paragon of virtue committee

    1. @markwebber As it happens, FIFA does impose rules on what Messi can say in that situation. They amount to “stick to football or football-related topics, and don’t say anything FIFA thinks is political”.

  12. Well, I guess no driver will say anything at all at the press conferences. Good choice FIA.

    1. Like Max Yes/No or I don’t know answers…

    2. @stever They will, because it’s already been established that total silence is treated the same as not attending a press conference, for the purposes of the “miss a press conference” regulation. Some sort of attempt at fielding a response is required from the regulations (as long as it cannot be construed as a political statement, personal statement, certain kinds of truth, potentially offensive, in any way awkward towards any FIA member, in any way harmful to the FIA or motorsport, certain kinds of helpful towards the FIA or motorsport, supporting any politics Mohammed Ben Sulayem does not personally support, invoke any politics not already supported by any element of the FIA, invoke any kind of faith, mention race at all…)

    3. @stever
      As my wife said: “What if all the drivers say “MBS is an arrogant [beep]” – what happens then?

      Interesting question. No drivers, no race.

  13. I wonder if this fine would actually hold up at court. I wonder if we’ll find out shortly if it does or not. I can imagine certain drivers or team bosses would not take such a penalty lying down and it seems to me very hard under EU or UK law to endorse a restriction on speech and expression.

    But I’m no lawyer, so maybe this is perfectly acceptable under the context of professionalism.

    1. @ideals There are ways of getting similar regulations through. The UK and EU definitely don’t have an issue with the FIA regulating speech at sporting venues for people involved in a sporting competition, provided no attempt is made to restrict speech anywhere else.

      There are problems in this case, though. Firstly, the phrasing of the regulations restricts use of the regulatory and legal systems, and that is a slam-dunk defeat for the FIA.

      Also, the FIA has already used similar regulations to fine people for their speech on social media. That’s a more contentious area; in the UK, individuals have had dismissals approved for some types of speech on social media (even on personal accounts) but companies have sometimes been required to pay for compensation for other types of critical speech on social media. Different parts of the EU have specific wrinkles about how they apply the law.

      The biggest issue here is that the restriction on the ethics committee means that arguably the biggest offender of these regulations in the past few years cannot be penalised for it. That is a governance violation that could potentially bring down the FIA entire.

  14. Next up, drivers will be fined if their girlfriends/wives don’t turn up fully clothed, burqa preferred.

    1. @hatebreeder I wouldn’t worry about that one. The FIA already earns money from the girlfriends/wives being in attendance at all (whatever their state of dress). It would be easier to earn the money back by simply increasing the cost of passes to drivers.

      1. Of course, family, partners and other invited guests get free passes allocated to the teams (from the Commercial Rights Holder – not the FIA) regardless.
        Who is making money from it, and how? Are you suggesting that some people are buying F1 tickets just to get a glimpse of some WAGs in the back of the pits?

        1. El Pollo Loco
          24th January 2025, 16:49

          He’s probably referring to the endless, lingering shots of beautiful girlfriends, wives, etc. in the pits. However, that is FOM, not the FIA.

  15. Great, more rules.

  16. This comments section went pretty much exactly where I expected; straight to blaming the FIA for drivers making their own poor decisions, as usual.
    Remember – nobody needs to be the recipient of any of these punishments.
    The rules of this workplace are clearly laid out here for all drivers to see. Breach them at your own risk.

    It’s also worth noting that these guidelines are not solely for the protection of the FIA or the President (why are people even mentioning him here?) – they aim to protect all of F1’s (and other series’) stakeholders and participants, both on a professional/business level and on a personal one.

    1. S, newflash:
      The drivers didn’t write these regulations.
      The drivers didn’t attempt to penalise anyone for following the regulations (following all of these regulations would require drivers to both speak (dishonestly, of course, because the truth itself is banned in some contexts) and be silent at all press conferences simultaneously, which is physically impossible).
      The drivers didn’t write a new regulation to exempt the worst individual offender in motorsport from the regulation.
      The drivers didn’t decide to line anyone’s pockets with ill-gotten gains.
      The drivers didn’t decide that the proper way to handle a request for transparency was opacity combined with charging more money.

      The FIA has done all of that with these regulations. The FIA has already done more harm than good with them. If you cannot understand the extent to which the FIA has endangered itself and F1 with these regulations, then re-read the comments here until you do.

    2. Oh, and the FIA President is being mentioned here because the raft of regulations was his idea specifically. He’s proud of all the money he’s got into the FIA after the debt hole Jean Todt generated, and considers it a signature of his tenure.

    3. The rules of this workplace are clearly laid out here

      Where is the definition of what constitutes “moral injury … to the FIA”. Perhaps I’ve missed a Technical Directive issued by the FIA’s Ministry of Truth. Oh well, just knock a few points off my next WDC attempt.

      1. Where is the definition of what constitutes “moral injury … to the FIA”.

        I think using a bit of common sense might automatically provide you with a reasonable answer.
        Once you’ve been penalised for not using any, you’ll know where the line is that you crossed.

  17. I’m looking forward to the “Yes” and “No” answers from the drivers in the press conference. I’m sure they will be very creative in finding a way to criticize this rule.

      1. “Maybe”.

        You can’t be punished for an extremist view then.

  18. wow, 1984 meets middle eastern laws. Fun, maybe add 100 public stick beatings before the race.

  19. Alan S Thomson
    24th January 2025, 19:36

    So if a driver swears during a race does that count or is it just while outside the car. I’m a little confused about that part.

  20. Rules are so generic that drivers can get fined or banned (up to who ever is steward) for about anything. Saying “FIA should do better”is bringing discredit to f1. Fine…

Comments are closed.