Formula 1 has always been at the forefront of the motorsports world stage - not just for racing talent and technological innovation - but in recent seasons for a growing tension between the series, drivers, teams and their governing body. The sport's governance falls solely under the Fédération Internationale l'Automobile (FIA). Several controversial rules and regulations such as a ban on wearing jewelry, political and personal statements, and regulation of swearing have recently exacerbated the conversation about limits of personal freedom in the sport.
Before we draw any conclusions, let's chat about what role the FIA actually plays in the sport of F1...
The FIA's job is very extensive- ranging from race regulations and safety standards, to performance, and business strategy. Long story short, every role on every team, every track, and every part of the series answers to the rules set by the FIA (even media).
According to the FIA website, there are many primary governing bodies, under the leadership of Mohammed Ben Sulayem.
By definition, the FIA serves a mission to 'uphold motorsport integrity', responsible for both competitive and operational elements of motorsports - in this case, namely, Formula 1. Technically the FIA forms a holistic approach to running the sport, but this structure also means that the FIA must strike a balance between athlete welfare, commercial interests, and public perceptions. While there are standards of safety and business practices that apply to all teams, cars, and drivers, the leadership of Ben-Sulayem is uniquely criticized for his 'overstep' into the arena of managing personal expression.
Even though 'Max Verstappen vs the FIA' is what's fresh in our minds as Formula 1 fans, there have been 2 other distinct cases of rules imposed by Ben-Sulayem that were heavily criticized publicly and by drivers.
During the 2022 Miami Grand Prix, the FIA announced two new regulations:
You might be asking yourself right now... underwear... really? Yes, really. Both of these rules sparked a string of backlash up and down the grid.
Oscar Piastri (Alpine Reserve at the time) commented on the underwear regulations with incredulity,
"It was quite a long discussion [and] a few people have changed some of their underwear protocols. It's a contentious topic because you're going commando if you're not wearing your own."
Kevin Magnussen commented on the jewelry ban with questions about removing his wedding band,
"With something like that, like your wedding ring, let us take that responsibility. There must be some way to remove liability."
Most famously, Lewis Hamilton showed up to the following press conference wearing three watches and several necklaces and rings stating that the FIA had,
"Bigger fish to fry. They are accommodating us at the moment, but we shouldn't have to keep revisiting it each weekend."
Hamilton, who has been outspoken on personal freedoms and is considered a blueprint of on and off-track fashion, called the jewelry ban a “step backward,” expressing frustration that he had to remove his nose piercing despite having worn it for years without incident. However the FIA, specifically Race Director Niels Wittich, doubled down citing excessive burns due to jewelry.
Does this qualify as censorship, though? In my opinion, no. It is a logical response to safety concerns, especially after the fiery crash of Romain Grosjean at the 2020 Bahrain Grand Prix, that protecting drivers from severe injury can easily explain the institution and enforcement of these two rules. At the risk of a €50,000 fine, even Magnussen was able to part with his wedding ring while on track.
One of the most significant recent controversies surrounds the FIA’s ban on political, religious, or personal statements, a policy that has drawn considerable criticism from drivers and fans alike. This rule was formalized in 2023, preventing drivers from using race weekends to promote causes unless approved in advance by the governing body.
Drivers are free to express themselves in their own time but the FIA has clarified three key areas where drivers are not allowed to make certain statements:
You can guess... and we all equally remember... the outrage of nearly every driver on track.
Lewis Hamilton, especially, who has always used his platform to advocate for racial equality, the environment, LGBTQ+ representation, freedom of oppressed communities and more said,
“I feel the sport does have a responsibility to speak out on things and raise awareness on certain topics, particularly as we travel to all these places, so nothing changes for me."
The rest of the grid followed suit with Lando Norris likening the ban to being treated like "school children" and George Russell suggesting that this was an attempt to keep drivers "in a box" and limit their influence beyond the track.
The FIA has maintained that the ban is necessary to keep politics out of sport. Mohammad Ben Sulayem justified the ban fullheartedly. His vision emphasizes that F1 should be focused on racing and entertainment, not on polarizing issues.
“We don’t want Formula 1 to become a platform for political activism.”
My take? Limiting athletes from using one of the most influential global platforms to support important social causes is shortsighted. Formula 1, as a worldwide sport with a diverse audience, offers drivers a unique opportunity to raise awareness on issues like racial equality, climate change, and human rights—topics that transcend the racetrack. By silencing their voices, the FIA stifles progress and discourages athletes from speaking up for what they believe in.
This stance feels especially hypocritical considering FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem's decision to invite Donald Trump, a deeply polarizing political figure, to the 2024 Miami Grand Prix.
If such political figures can be welcomed to such a high-profile event by its governing body, why are drivers denied the chance to share their own views on matters that matter to them and their fans? This contradiction suggests that the FIA’s regulations are more about controlling narratives than preserving the purity of the sport.
A new chapter in Formula 1’s rules of conduct emerged this season - with the FIA cracking down on swearing by drivers, and Max Verstappen at the epicenter. The Dutch driver, was penalized and given 'community service' by the FIA for using 'inappropriate language' during media activities at the Singapore Grand Prix.
This enforcement stems from an updated definition of “misconduct” in the FIA’s International Sporting Code, as Ben-Sulayem aims to promote a more 'polished image' of the sport.
Yet again, the grid was outraged. Lewis Hamilton called the penalty a “little bit of a joke” and even urged Verstappen not to take the punishment too seriously. Other drivers, like Lando Norris and Charles Leclerc, also weighed in, noting that swearing in the heat of the moment is a natural part of such a high-pressure sport.
Fernando Alonso, a veteran of the sport, made the most important point that holding drivers to such stringent language standards could detract from the authenticity that fans expect.
Even further the Grand Prix Drivers Association (GPDA) chairman Alex Wurz made the point that,
"How many lifetime community services would Guenther Steiner have to serve for using the F-word? He was glorified for using the F-word. Netflix broadcast that worldwide, no problem. But then to suddenly change like that..."
Considering the statements that Ben-Sulayem made after the considerable criticism across the grid surfaced, this rule is flat out censorship... we can nearly all agree on that. In an interview with Motorsport MBS said:
"I mean, we have to differentiate between our sport – motorsport – and rap music. We're not rappers, you know. They say the F-word how many times per minute? We are not on that. That's them and we are [us].”
It may be bold to say... but I don't think anyone confused Formula 1 with rap music.
While one can understand the use of clean language on broadcasts and during official press conferences, the censoring of personal expression becomes extremely murky territory... especially when the most celebrated figures of Formula 1 in recent years are famous and beloved by the media and fans alike FOR their personal expression - cursing or otherwise.
It's no shock that governing such a complex and global sport like Formula 1 is a monster task. Not everyone will like everything that you do, especially when placing rules on them is your NUMBER ONE priority.
On one hand, the FIA IS responsible for ensuring that Formula 1 remains a global spectacle, free from controversies that could alienate sponsors or tarnish its image. On the other hand, Formula 1 has historically been a sport that thrives on personality, passion, and a degree of rebellion.
Sportsmanship guidelines have traditionally been designed to maintain order and safety, but when those guidelines start to affect personal values and expression, questions arise. Drivers are, after all, public figures with influence, and many fans argue that silencing them in favor of a sanitized image could diminish the sport’s appeal.
Could some of these rules be in the best interests of commercial ventures rather than safety and sportage? Does the primary focus of the sport shifting to the Americas have a role to play? I mean, Formula 1 has been aligning more and more with the NFL (National Football League) - a league that has some of the strictest Code of Conduct regulations of any sport (some of which are mirrors of the aforementioned FIA rules). OR do the personal values of those in charge of the FIA more accurately reflect the rules they expect Formula 1 drivers to follow?
In the end, the FIA claims to prioritize safety and professionalism, but how far is 'too far' in an attempt to maintain control over F1's image? This raises broader questions about where sports leagues should draw the line between enforcing guidelines for the sake of uniformity and safety, and allowing athletes the freedom to express their individuality.
