FIA issues clarification stating when drivers must not make “political statements”

2023 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

The FIA has issued a clarification regarding its clampdown on drivers expressing political views.

The governing body of motorsport issued updated regulations for 2023 which forbade drivers from expressing any views which might be considered a violation of the FIA’s principles of neutrality, without seeking its permission in advance.

The move prompted widespread criticism from drivers including Lewis Hamilton, Max Verstappen and Alexander Albon. Grand Prix Drivers’ Association director George Russell described it as a “silly regulation” which wasn’t needed.

With two weeks to go until the start of the 2023 F1 season in Bahrain, the FIA has issued a guidance note to competitors clarifying the new restrictions will only apply at certain times during an event. These will include limits during track activities such as the drivers’ parade and national anthem observance, during pre- and post-race activities such as on the podium and in the cool-down room, and during FIA press conferences, except when responding to accredited journalists.

An FIA spokesperson told RaceFans: “A guidance note has been issued to participants in international competitions that sets out the scope of the updates made to the FIA International Sporting Code in December. The updates cement the FIA’s longstanding commitment to protecting motor sport’s neutrality, and will particularly ensure neutrality during key moments across all motor sport competitions, such as podiums, national anthems and official activities ‘on the field of play’ – it does not impose any additional restrictions on individuals expressing their views outside of these times.

“The guidance note does not alter Article 12.2.1.n of the FIA International Sporting Code. It was necessary to provide a separate guidance document to facilitate the implementation of the principles of neutrality across the many different motor sport disciplines.”

The note stresses competitors “can express their views on any political, religious or personal matter” providing they do so outside of certain designated times. It also points out that “non-proselytising religious gestures, such as pointing to the sky or crossing oneself” – as Pierre Gasly regularly does prior to races – are permitted.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

It gives 10 examples of political subjects which may land a driver in trouble if they refer to them “in the form of an image, symbol, gesture, words, or action.” These include references to “politically-associated or politically-sensitive persons”, “any military conflict or political dispute between nations, regions, religions, or communities” and “any specific ethnic or indigenous communities, or perceived discrimination by one community against another.”

Drivers may request permission for an exemption to make a statement at an event which would not ordinarily be permitted. The FIA says they must request permission at least four weeks before the event in question.

FIA guidance note to teams on political neutrality

Guidance on the principle of neutrality
(Article 12.2.1.n of the ISC)

For over half a century (since 8 May 1970 – Article 2 of the FIA Statutes), the FIA has maintained the principle of neutrality as one of its guiding values. Like the International Olympic Committee and many other sport governing bodies, this principle is reflected in its core rules (Article 1.2 of the FIA Statutes), which sets out the FIA’s commitment not to discriminate on account of race, skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic or social origin, language, religion, philosophical or political opinion, family situation, or disability.

Article 12.2.1.n has been included in the FIA International Sporting Code (ISC) to cement the FIA’s longstanding commitment to protecting motor sport’s neutrality. This provision makes the following a breach of the rule:

“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” [emphasis added]

This note is intended to provide guidance to drivers and other participants (officials, teams, competitors, etc.) on the implementation of this principle during International Competitions.

Why does this principle exist and what does it aim to achieve?

The participants in International Competitions are part of a global community with different views, lifestyles and values. To ensure respect for this diversity, it is fundamental that motor sport remains neutral and thus separate from and free of political, religious, or personal interference.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

The focus at any International Competition must remain on motor sport and on the performances of teams and drivers. It should not be used as a platform for individual advocacy.

This principle also aims to prevent participants from being placed in a position where they may be forced to take a public position on a particular domestic or international issue when they would prefer not to do so

Can participants express their own views?

Yes. Participants can express their views on any political, religious or personal matter before, during and after the International Competition, in their own space, and outside the scope of the international Competition, for example:
– through their social media; or
– during interviews with accredited media (such as any TV or print media interviews,
– during the FIA press conference, only in response to direct questions from accredited journalists.

In addition, as explained below, on an exceptional and case-by-case basis, the FIA may authorise a participant to make a statement at an International Competition that would otherwise be prohibited by Article 12.2.1.n.

When expressing their views, participants are expected to respect applicable laws, the FIA’s values, and all other participants. Any behaviour and/or expression that constitutes or signals discrimination, hatred, hostility, or the potential for violence is contrary to the FIA’s values and will not be tolerated.

When does Article 12.2.1.n apply?

Participants are not permitted to make political, religious and/or personal statements in violation of the general principle of neutrality during:
– FIA press conferences (except in response to direct questions from accredited journalists);
– activities on the track (course) area or equivalent (e.g., during the Drivers Parade and the national anthem); or
– pre-race / post-race procedures or equivalent (e.g., the podium ceremony, in the cool down room, or at the start- and end-of-season group photos).

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

What constitutes “political”, “religious” or “personal”?

It is the responsibility of the stewards to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a statement or comment – whether in the form of an image, symbol, gesture, words, or actions – is in breach of Article 12.2.1.n of the ISC. To aid the stewards in making such determinations, the FIA has prepared a non- exhaustive list of potential scenarios that could be prohibited under Article 12.2.1.n. However, this list is intended to be illustrative only, and stewards will carefully assess the specific circumstances of each potential contravention when determining whether a breach of the rules has occurred.

Illustrative examples

It is likely that a participant has breached the ISC under Article 12.2.1.n if they make any unapproved statements or comments – whether in the form of an image, symbol, gesture, words, or actions – related to the following:

Political:
– Any politically-associated or politically-sensitive person(s) living or dead (unless part of the official competition name).
– Any local, regional, national, or international political party/ organisation/group.
– Any local, regional, or national government or any of its departments, offices or functions.
– Any function or branch of government (e.g., any statement or comment regarding the police or military).
– Any reference (whether express or implied) to separatist movements (e.g., the display of a flag or symbol associated with an independence movement).
– Any organisation whose aims or actions: (i) conflict with the FIA’s values or Diversity and Inclusion mission; and/or (ii) include hostility, prejudice, or unlawful discrimination on the grounds set out in Article 1.2 of the FIA Statutes.
– Any reference to any totalitarian regime that justified mass killing (e.g., pro-Nazi chants).
– Any specific political act/ event.
– Any military conflict or political dispute between nations, regions, religions, or communities.
– Any specific ethnic or indigenous communities, or perceived discrimination by one
community against another.

Religious:
– A religion, spiritual practice, or related significant figure, except as indicated below.
– Anything critical of or hostile to others’ religious or spiritual beliefs.
N.B.:
– Private, non-proselytising religious gestures, such as pointing to the sky or crossing oneself, shall not be considered prohibited religious statements.
– Article 12.2.1.n will not be used to sanction individuals who display religious symbols or wear prescribed religious clothing/ornaments, unless they include prohibited statements or comments of the kind mentioned above.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Personal:
– Any circumstance personal to the participant. Competitors must not use events as a platform to share personal statements of any kind in violation of the general principle of neutrality.

Seeking approval under Article 12.2.1.n of the ISC

On an exceptional and case-by-case basis, the FIA may authorise a participant to make a statement at an International Competition that would otherwise be prohibited by Article 12.2.1.n.

• Anyone seeking the permission of the FIA as per Article 12.2.1.n. of the ISC must submit a written request to the FIA, providing reason(s) why such permission should be granted.
• Such request must be received at least four weeks before the event concerned. Late requests will only be considered by the FIA on an exceptional basis.
• Please be advised that:
– approval, if granted, shall only last for the duration of a specified race/event, after which it will automatically expire; and
– there shall be no right of appeal against the FIA’s decision to approve or reject an Article
12.2.1.n request.
• If the participant wants to make the statement or comment at a National Competition, they should seek the permission of the relevant ASN

What happens if a participant does not comply with Article 12.2.1.n?

Anyone who is aware of a potential breach of Article 12.2.1.n should notify the Race Director (if appointed) or otherwise the Clerk of the Course. They in turn may report the matter to the Stewards. Where breach of Article 12.2.1.n is established, the Stewards may impose any of the penalties listed under Article 12.4.1 of the ISC.

Alleged violations of the ethical principles contained in the FIA regulations (e.g., Article 3.1 of the FIA Code of Ethics, which provides that “the FIA Parties and Third Parties shall work to maintain harmonious relations with national authorities, in accordance with the principle of universality and of political neutrality of the FIA”) may also be reported through the FIA Ethics and Compliance Hotline (available at http://www.fia-ethicsline.com/). All reports will be duly assessed, and any wrongdoing will be addressed in accordance with FIA regulations.

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.

53 comments on “FIA issues clarification stating when drivers must not make “political statements””

  1. What a long guidance note.

  2. I would talk about the weather, mainly the weather from the country where the race in happening, when asked about ANYTHING related to F1 in any F1 official event (pre/post race/quali/practice interviews, etc. )! ALWAYS!

    1. I feel the issue here is (money of course, but more indirect this time) that Liberty/FIA does not want drivers to use Liberty/FIA platforms to build their own. Drivers should use their own channels for this and not piggy back ride on the investments made by FIA/Liberty. Not sure how I feel myself about that, but this is stakeholder management combined with revenue protection and pointing out that the business agreement between Liberty and the drivers does not include use of Liberty’s channels for your own marketing purposes.

  3. Well, at least they made it clear when at what times they want to censor drivers. But the content of this rule is still really bad.

    I am somewhat curious about “except in response to direct questions from accredited journalists” will mean in practice. If say Claire were to ask Hamilton whether he still supports BLM in Miami, he can say “off course I do, ….. “? And if someone asks “have you been asked by opposition movements in Bahrain to adress the enduring bad treatment of those movements” they can answer including clearly condemning that government?

    I guess the FIA will then have to find another way to silence accredited media not to ask any such questions (by taking away their accreditation?).

    1. Or say, someone ask Hamilton about whether he’d have considered taking the knee during an anthem (not allowed by my reading) after winning the UK gp if not for potential sporting penalties, for example @bascb

  4. Would be fun if accredited journalists ask seperate questions about womens rights, gay rights, trans rights, rights of Jews and other religions when we are in Bahrain, quatar and Saudi Arabia – to all drivers.

    1. They wouldn’t be accredited for long… Journalists get their own guidance on what not to talk about.

    2. I’m also very interested in what “FIA’s values or Diversity and Inclusion mission” (which was proudly established under Ben Sulayem) can say about those questions.

    3. Countries which have the death penalty for homosexuality are often very progressive on trans rights.

  5. petebaldwin (@)
    17th February 2023, 19:12

    It’ll be funny watching these rules broken at the first event and the FIA panicking about what to do.

  6. Dutchguy (@justarandomdutchguy)
    17th February 2023, 19:17

    – Anything critical of or hostile to others’ religious or spiritual beliefs.

    This is one worringly broad and ill-defined term. A rule like this would be an absolute nightmare to police and could very easily be used to disallow anything and everything

    1. Yep, that about covers everything. Someone will always be offended about anything….. Your comment seems hostile to me! Joking, joking!

    2. @justarandomdutchguy As well as prohibiting some of the guidance in the exact same note. This is not, perhaps, the wisest idea the FIA has ever had.

  7. I wonder who had to actually write this thing. What a total waste of time. I’m sure they had a miserable time doing it.

  8. Lewisham Milton
    17th February 2023, 20:42

    4 weeks? Why?

    1. 4 weeks is long enough for a hot topic to have done the rounds in other media, where context and facts will have become clearer to all concerned. This way there’s time for a reasoned and balanced opinion to be given by someone in the public eye at an F1 meeting.

    2. The FIA is not noted for fast response times. I’m impressed that they are able to promise a response within 4 weeks.

  9. this is about as clear as mud!

  10. Hmmm. This appears to ban drivers from having rainbow stripes or the colours of Ukraine on their helmets.

    1. Unlikely, as it says ‘unapproved’, and the FIA itself has previously stated it “unequivocally condemns the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the support provided by Belarus.” The WMSC subsequently affirmed “the strong commitment of the FIA to stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine, the Federation Automobile d’Ukraine, and all of those suffering as a result of the ongoing conflict.”

      That’s about as approved as it gets.

      1. It has, but it also hasn’t approved any particular form of support other than restrictions on Russian and Belarussian competitors. That’s not going to be enough to help.

  11. meanwhile they make the biggest political statement of all by gladly taking money from authoritarian regimes looking to sportwash themselves. pathetic and stupid.

    1. Spot on AJ, it’s an absolute joke.

      1. It’s a joke that people still don’t know who is responsible for what in in F1.
        Liberty are the ones doing the calendar and taking all the money – not the FIA.

        1. S, did you know that the FIA has absolute veto over the calendar, and has done since 1981?

          1. Yes. And?
            Unless there is a specific reason for FIA to disallow an event, they will accept the calendar as it is presented to them.

      2. For over half a century (since 8 May 1970 – Article 2 of the FIA Statutes), the FIA has maintained the principle of neutrality as one of its guiding values.

        This is laughable in it entirety. The same Formula 1 that stopped racing in Russia for political reasons???

        1. FOM pulled out of the Russian GP contract, and the EU has then forbidden F1 trading with Russia.
          Not the FIA’s responsibility.

        2. Not political, sporting.

          The FIA’s WMSC followed the recommendations of the International Olympic Committee. The IOC was particularly aggrieved as the Russian invasion took place during the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, and in their comments the IOC also remarked the Russians have previously and repeatedly engaged in systematic attempts to undermine sporting events through state sponsored doping programs. As they further explained, the Russian and Belarussian act of aggression against Ukraine was a “extremely grave violation of the Olympic Truce” which also meant that Ukrainian athletes could not, and cannot to this day, compete in international sporting events.

          Russians know what they have to do to overturn these decisions. The ball is in their court.

          1. Let’s say the FIA is most likely thinking of its legal obligations towards political neutrality when it made that statement.

        3. Its definitely the same F1 that cancelled the 2011 Bahrain GP for political reasons

          1. @mrfill “Not being able to get insurance for the event any more” is not a political reason – it’s a financial one.

  12. FIA commits not to discriminate on account political opinion….

    The very statute their holding up commits to the exact opposite of what they are doing. There is nothing discriminatory about a driver sharing their opinion. It’s extremely discriminatory to punish someone for doing so.

    1. Agreed.

      At least this guidance seems to clear up that it’s only say very specific times during an event where it applies (given the regulations themselves didn’t), but it’s still very broadly defined and, therefore, highly restrictive and open to abuse. There is pretty much nothing that someone couldn’t argue fell under that definition, one way or another, so the drivers are only safe answering direct questions without elaboration. Let’s see what the fans think of that…

      And the events will still be chock full of political content and nationalistic propaganda. Those who have been kicking up a fuss about drivers promoting people being nice to one another get the political views they wanted removed, but all the political contact which has been irritating to me for years stays. I have to be the adult and just ignore the parts which annoy me, where all the toddlers have a tantrum and get their way…

      1. There is nothing discriminatory about a driver sharing their opinion.

        That’s true – but the content of that expression and the placement of it certainly can be discriminatory.

        It’s extremely discriminatory to punish someone for doing so.

        Not when it’s part of a code of conduct that the drivers have explicitly accepted and signed up to in advance.

      2. At least this guidance seems to clear up that it’s only say very specific times during an event where it applies (given the regulations themselves didn’t)

        It’s almost like someone cleared that up for you already…

        I have to be the adult and just ignore the parts which annoy me, where all the toddlers have a tantrum and get their way…

        From now?

        1. It’s almost like someone cleared that up for you already…

          No, they didn’t. The regulations as written are not even restricted to events, and there are rules in the same block which have been used to apply to actions outside events. This needed officially clarifying, because as written out could have been used as a gag on drivers at all times.

          From now?

          To be fair, it’s always been the way. The adults who accept that others have a different view and just put up with those things which irritate them without seriously interfering with their lives out the lives of anyone else have to continue to do so indefinitely, whereas the toddlers who kick and scream get their every whim catered for.

          So, those who have been throwing a tantrum for “no politics in F1” get the specific “political” elements they dislike removed, whereas the long list of other political elements which intrude far more on the events get left in place. Their annoyance at drivers trying to make the world a better place is quashed, but all the unnecessary nationalistic propaganda and other, far less important but far more intrusive, political elements they promoted just as hard.

          1. To be fair, it’s always been the way.

            The squeaky wheel gets the oil, as they say…

            Their annoyance at drivers trying to make the world a better place is quashed, but all the unnecessary nationalistic propaganda and other, far less important but far more intrusive, political elements they promoted just as hard.

            That’s a great example of individual values. What is political and what isn’t… What is appropriate for the circumstances and what isn’t…

            Whatever – it doesn’t change the fact that F1 is a privately run system, and it is run the way its owners and stakeholders want to run it.
            No amount of ‘us’ bleating away on random websites is going to change that.

        2. No, they didn’t.

          You’ve forgotten our previous conversations already?

          This needed officially clarifying, because as written out could have been used as a gag on drivers at all times.

          Of course it can’t. How much authority to you think the FIA think they have? They can only ‘control’ what is said within their domain, and, to a lesser extent, what is said about them directly outside of that domain (if defamatory in nature).
          As has been the case for a long time (decades prior to this change of the ISC).

          1. Of course it can’t. How much authority to you think the FIA think they have?

            The FIA can revoke a superlicense, or apply a range of other penalties, if a driver says it does something outside an event which is seen to either damage the FIA or being the sport into disrepute. That rule is in the same section as, with similar wording to, the rule about political statements.

            They absolutely could use that role as written, without adding clarification, to impose a penalty up to and including effectively kicking them out of F1. That means, again without clarifications, it could effectively be used to gag the drivers, particularly as pretty much anything a driver says could fall under the sniper of that rule.

            And I do remember our previous conversation, but you explaining that you didn’t think it would apply didn’t make your opinion correct. Your opinion of how the rule would be interpreted is not an official clarification.

        3. Ah, I think I’ve just got what you meant.

          I’ve been an adult about this for decades. I dislike certain political aspects of F1 events, but I haven’t made a fuss all that time.

          It’s only now, when they’re had been so much talk of banning political elements, that I’ve raised it. I know you don’t consider the things I’m speaking of political, but then I don’t consider drivers asking people to be nice to one another political, either. Now, an element I’ve found to be a great addition to the show is being banned because others couldn’t take the grown up path, yet all the political elements I’ve been quietly putting up with for decades stay in place.

          I’ll carry on putting up with those elements, because I know they add to the show for other people. It’s galling, however, that others couldn’t show me the same courtesy, and threw a massive tantrum until a part of the events I like was banned.

  13. Honestly, this is about what i expected and what i’m used to most of my professional career. Deal with that stuff on your own time, during a race weekend talk about racing and leave the rest of it alone. Most fans are watching F1 as entertainment and a bit of escapism. Agree or disagree with whatever the drivers are promoting it’s just not the time for that, but they can do whatever on their own time.

  14. Yep – pretty much exactly as I was expecting.
    Basically the same as the majority of other businesses and professions.

  15. petebaldwin (@)
    18th February 2023, 10:55

    It’s all irrelevant anyway. The drivers will just release a statement prior to the race weekend and the media will then ask them about said statement during the press conferences. As they’ve been asked, they’ll be allowed to say whatever they want in accordance with rules.

    1. How long would you expect those particular media personnel to remain accredited after playing that game? (Remember who provides that accreditation…)

      You know the media can simply ask those questions outside after the media conference, right? That’s not official FIA media time, and I’m sure the drivers would be happy to talk about whatever (if they really want the media exposure that much).

  16. Is this “neutral” F1 allowing Russian citizens to race again yet?

    1. The Russians and their Belarussian cronies know exactly what they have to do to lift every sanction and to overturn the recommendations of the IOC, which in turn prompted the WMSC to make its initial decision back in March 2022. They are not the victims here.

  17. Seann Sheriland
    18th February 2023, 14:27

    Sounds rather draconian to me. Smacks of dictatorial methodology.

  18. Too much political talking, I can’t stand it! Can’t even read an article like this completely for that reason.

    1. And yet you’re here.
      Voicing your opinion freely.

      1. Note the key point is “here.” On a website, using a personal account.
        Not at work, while representing others.

  19. Does that mean that the next time a bomb/missile goes off near a track with plumes of smoke rising the drivers will respond with “What bang?” or “Is that someone having a bonfire over there?”

    1. @mrfill No, because that would also be a political statement. (As would staring at the plume of smoke in silence).

Comments are closed.