Formula 1 drivers and other participants in FIA events have been banned from making “political statements” without the permission of the governing body.
The clampdown has been defined in an update to the International Sporting Code, the rules which govern all series run by the FIA.The FIA has banned “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.”
Competitors are also advised that “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” will now be considered a breach of the regulations.
Other drivers have made political statements using their race wear. Sebastian Vettel was criticised by Canadian politicians when he wore a helmet featuring the messages “Stop mining tar sands” and “Canada’s climate crime” at the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve this year. He did not wear the design for the grand prix.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Earlier this year FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem, who replaced Jean Todt in the role 12 months ago, contrasted Hamilton and Vettel’s outspoken stance on social issues with that of past drivers. Ben Sulayem held up likes of Niki Lauda and Alain Prost, who he said “only cared about driving” as examples.
A further update to the ISC has revised the definition of acts of “misconduct” in the eyes of the rule-makers. Previously drivers had been forbidden from “insulting” behaviour “especially by using offensive gestures, signs or language (written or verbal).” The expanded section now prohibits “the general use of language (written or verbal), gesture and/or sign that is offensive, insulting, coarse, rude or abusive and might reasonably be expected or be perceived to be coarse or rude or to cause offense, humiliation or to be inappropriate.”
The FIA Statutes continue to declare that the governing body “shall promote the protection of human rights and human dignity, and refrain from manifesting discrimination on account of race, skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic or social origin, language, religion, philosophical or political opinion, family situation or disability in the course of its activities and from taking any action in this respect.”
Don't miss anything new from RaceFans
Follow RaceFans on social media:
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2022 F1 season
- Mercedes told me “you’re wrong” about 2022 car’s problems – Hamilton
- FIA confirms all 10 F1 teams complied with 2022 cost cap
- Steiner “not ashamed” of panning “slow” Schumacher in Drive to Survive
- Albon believes year out of F1 improved him as a driver
- Hamilton sees diversity gains in F1 years on from his ‘traumatising’ experience of racism
Red Andy (@red-andy)
20th December 2022, 7:17
Whereas the transparently political sportswashing of the head-chopping regimes of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, for example, is absolutely fine.
S
20th December 2022, 7:30
Or it could just be wealthy promoters buying an F1 event…. Depending on how you want to look at it, of course.
I mean, which country that F1 visits actually has a clear record?
BamBoomBots
20th December 2022, 7:56
This is little more than whataboutism. Not participating in sportswashing schemes of countries cutting up journalists, hanging up people for being who they are, or committing genocide should be the bare minimum.
This ‘clampdown’ is however understandable from a business perspective. It is about minimising the risk of undesired publicity for the buyer, making the product (a GP) more attractive to them, as its more likely to achieve the desired outcome. This means getting you to believe the regime is not that bad after all, ergo engineering the narrative.
Or are we seriously going to believe that it was Spa, Brasil, or Monza that lobbied for this change?
S
20th December 2022, 8:36
Well, that’s absolutely true if FIA/F1 want to be politically active. But they’ve just said that they don’t…. so….
If you don’t agree with what a given country is doing or has done, chances are you’re not going go there to attend their sports event.
So if that’s what is meant by ‘sportswashing’ – it’s clearly tremendously ineffective.
Bradders (@bradders)
20th December 2022, 12:10
There is more to sportswashing than the lack of attendance of an event. The FIFA World Cup is a prime example of that. To pretend otherwise is being blinkered.
Michael Masi
20th December 2022, 14:11
People that squeak “this is whataboutism” when met with valid points <<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Like why has highlighting hypocrisy become whataboutism lmao
More like ignorance and inability to deviate from a personal agenda
JackL
20th December 2022, 14:28
@red-andy Its incredibly hypocritical to single out two countries when the rest have plenty of blood on their hands too.
@BamBamBots Whataboutism is a disingenuous way of ignoring valid arguments that children do all the time.
Also, by your logic F1 shouldnt be going to Canada or the US. Theyre still digging up graves from their genocide. Or China, where there are literal concentration camps. Or Brazil with its rampant corruption. Or Turkey. Or most of Eurpoe (didnt the UK just pass a law to send refugees and asylum seekers to Rwanda?). If you’re going to stand for human rights, do it everywhere. Not where it fits an agenda.
baasbas
22nd December 2022, 12:48
@JackL
To be fair: <If you’re going to stand for human rights, do it everywhere. Not where it fits an agenda.
Isn’t that exactly what Vettel was doing with his helmet design?
So are you two now arguing on something that is actually not the problem?
BasCB (@bascb)
20th December 2022, 11:22
So you are saying S that if a big sponsor would pay say AM to have the car race in rainbow colours next year nobody in the FIA should object either? Or if maybe Gasly shows up with a huge cross on his overalls (sponsored by the Vatican in a mega deal), it would not fall under this rule either?
That is just clearly nonsense. Off course they will use it to make all and every notion a driver has a personality and an opinion on things that should be normal but in reality are not in many countries on the Calendar (LGTB+ rights, discrimination based on skin colour and/or religion/gender, talking about human rights, talking about modern day slavery, mentioning we shouldn’t damage our planet more than absolutely avoidable, critisizing wars etc and possibly extended to signalling your religion on the grid and before/after the race, … name it) illegal. To control everything.
S
20th December 2022, 13:10
You are asking me if the FIA should actually apply their own rules and disallow anything that breaches them? Of course my answer is yes.
However, the FIA are the ones who determine what their own rules are and how they apply them. Or even if they apply them, as has been well proven.
What I can say is that most of those examples you give do have highly social and cultural political aspects – so I’d expect that if the FIA values their neutrality, they’ll want their series to be acceptable to everyone around the world, even if it seems restrictive (or to use another word, censored) to some.
As in…. neutral…..
And that’s OK, because all those issues can, should and will still be raised via other methods and media.
Just not on the F1 stage.
elchinero (@elchinero)
20th December 2022, 14:47
No “Trump 2024” stickers? Jeezz.
T
20th December 2022, 15:05
just as a thought exercise under this new rule that you seem adamantly in favor of
1. should Gasly be allowed to continue his (religious) tradition of saying a prayer in front of his start box on international television every race?
2. are lewis’ hand tattoos going to be considered illegal?
3. what off his back piece, that kosher as well?
4. DHL (F1’s longest-standing global partner) just recently launched a pride campaign – “Delivered with Pride“, would it be a political statement to have a barrier plastered in rainbow DHL logos in the middle east during a race/session?
5. what is your stance on national flag colors on race suits and helmets, especially countries that are struggling to be recognized, a la, taiwan, kosovo, etc
6. if the goal is be neutral, completely neutral so much so that apathy would be a better description, should f1 return to sochi?
7. how about military displays and flyovers like Monza/AD? are those political? what if Austria does it like it?
8. I sure hope your sentiments on point 5, aligns with the same sentiment on national anthems, especially if a driver/constructor is on the top step on a contentious country’s soil?
9. who decides what is political? you? me? a jury of the driver’s peers? some out of touch old heads, governments of the hosting country?
10. when is it “f1 time” and where is it? could a driver tweet support of a cause in the comfort of their hotel a day before or an hour before a practice session?
are you starting to see how sanctioned speech, isn’t free speech?
S
21st December 2022, 8:21
I can answer all those questions if you like, but I’m not the one you really want answers from, right?
I don’t expect the FIA comes here very often…
baasbas
23rd December 2022, 8:05
@T
Well said. Thanks
Samouri (@samouri)
20th December 2022, 19:04
NONE..!!!
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th December 2022, 20:58
It isn’t. While improving image is definitely part of it, and would probably have resulted in certain countries partaking of F1 regardless, part of it is that some organisations will not accept the money on offer due to ethical incompatibility, cultural issues and/or racism. Reducing resistance created by certain policies and practises that are putting off potential investors and marketing opportunities will be an inevitable element of the Middle East’s situation. You’ll find similar phenomema at play where the prevailing cultural opinion of a place is at odds with an organisation wishing to break into that market (and yes, that’s mutual in the case of F1 and the Middle East).
JV
20th December 2022, 9:42
Since everybody seems to be aware of what these countries are trying to do, it’s clearly not working anyway.
Sonny Crockett (@sonnycrockett)
20th December 2022, 15:51
Obviously, this rule favours those drivers that have no care whatsoever for anyone or anything else in the world e.g. Max Verstappen.
😜
Itsmeagain (@)
20th December 2022, 22:37
Ah, whatever the subject is, max must be portraited as the devil, isn’t it? Silly, and simple, but here, that okay
Itsmeagain (@)
20th December 2022, 22:43
Try writing a post without your negative obsession about him😉
emuLOAD
21st December 2022, 5:12
well, it’s in line with demonstrated Olympic practices and ideals, I’d say.
The Edge (@the-edge)
20th December 2022, 7:27
So now we start to see true colours
Neutrality should mean just that, each person should be allowed to express themselves in a way they see fit & not be controlled by someone else’s opinion or believes
Such as…
It’s official… Mohammed Ben Sulayem is a scum bag, who should be sacked immediately for bringing disrepute to motor racing
S
20th December 2022, 9:18
Neutrality is the act of being impartial and not taking sides, which the FIA are clearly doing right.
Your definition is…. I was going to say creative, but no. It’s just wrong.
The Edge (@the-edge)
20th December 2022, 12:51
Your mistaking neutrality of an individual with neutrality of an organisation
If an organisation is staying neutral, then it means not interfering in the rights of the individual
S
20th December 2022, 13:15
Neutrality and interference are two separate concepts.
Neutral is neutral, no matter who or what it is.
In this case, if the FIA wish to be neutral, they will only support things which every country supports.
Not just some of them.
That way, everyone is happy. Some things may appear to be missing to certain viewers, but that’s because they aren’t supported in some places.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th December 2022, 20:54
Which means it can’t support motorsport, competition, and especially not anything which encourages anyone to participate in motorsport competition.
S
20th December 2022, 22:42
I completely disagree.
Ricky Bobby
20th December 2022, 10:33
neutral:
-not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute.
-not aligned with or supporting any side or position.
Sports will be much better going forward with such approach.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th December 2022, 20:53
Which the FIA refuses to do.
S
20th December 2022, 22:42
Who’s side are they taking?
Retired (@jeff1s)
20th December 2022, 7:30
Vomiting.
Vomitrocious for freedom of speech.
Such statements should be punished in 2022.
ruliemaulana (@ruliemaulana)
20th December 2022, 7:31
Finally. This is the right approach.
wsrgo (@wsrgo)
20th December 2022, 7:56
@ruliemaulana Clamping down on freedom of expression is the right approach?
Stormer
20th December 2022, 9:10
Politics dont have a place in sport
mrfill (@mrfill)
20th December 2022, 11:57
Seems they do, otherwise F1 would still be racing at Sochi.
MSO
20th December 2022, 12:52
You call fighting racism and protecting the environment politics?
Ok.
The Edge (@the-edge)
20th December 2022, 14:32
Human rights is NOT politics
S
20th December 2022, 14:47
It’s not F1 either.
S
20th December 2022, 9:28
Only within a tiny, privately owned and run section of the entire global media domain.
How many drivers allow members of the FIA to preach their own personal beliefs on the driver’s social media, I wonder?
Perhaps in support of Max Mosley’s famous parties, perhaps – just as an example?
Guy Gonyea
20th December 2022, 13:59
Let’s see how long it takes the FIA to try and prohibit drivers from speaking on on their social media channels. Gonna go back to the gag rules Ecclestone had on everybody. Maybe this is the real reason Seb decided to retire!!! ;-)
Lambert
20th December 2022, 9:29
No no, only expression that ruluelaulana disagrees with should be clamped down on, naturally.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th December 2022, 20:53
@ruliemaulana Only if you think the right approach is the FIA to cease to exist within the next 12 months, or have an embarrassing climbdown.
Even if you think drivers should be careful about what they say while competing, there are plenty of ways of doing that which don’t endanger the FIA’s very existence. It’s just that the FIA decided to do a self-destructive method instead.
ruliemaulana (@ruliemaulana)
21st December 2022, 7:07
@alianora-la-canta If Vettel can be pushed not to wear climate awareness helmet in Canada, it’s only fair if arab countries can pushed other drivers not to wear rainbow helmet. Unless you think every driver had the right to wear CIA killed JFK or something like that at Austin.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
23rd December 2022, 17:55
@ruliemaulana It’s questionable whether Vettel being pushed not to wear the climate awareness helmet in Canada was legal.
S
20th December 2022, 7:41
I agree with the FIA 100% here.
Drivers are more celebrity than athlete these days – they’ve got enormous followings and groups of believers on social media with their own personal accounts.
That’s the correct place for them to empty their minds about whatever they wish.
F1 is F1 time.
Just regarding this though….
How about that new female-only series they’ve just started up, eh….? How many males can participate?
Hazel Southwell (@hazelsouthwell)
20th December 2022, 8:04
Promoting equality and inclusion means addressing inequality. In a sport where, across all of the governing body’s sanctioned series (and remember, this is not just about F1) the massively vast majority of competitors are men then a low-level junior series, intended (hopefully) as a stepping stone to increase the number of women who are ready to participate at higher levels is a step towards balancing the books. Equality of opportunity in a sport that is so extremely exclusive and where so many people twist the odds with money and connections, sometimes requires some intervention; we can’t pretend that junior series places are allocated meritocratically.
If you like motorsport then you want the absolute best drivers to be participating. If that’s drawn from a narrow pool by default (men make up slightly less than half the global population) then you’re makiing that poorer.
It’s very hard work to find a way to look at motorsport as a whole and feel that it’s unfair for 15 women to get a season at F4 level, as a largely experimental attempt to see if it can get one or two of them into F3.
S
20th December 2022, 8:56
What, exactly is the inequality? Ultimately, it’s financial, isn’t it.
The fact that the vast majority of participants in motorsport are men shows that more males choose to pursue that path, and chase the funding to support their choice.
You use the term ‘balancing the books’ as though there’s an equality scoreboard.
That’s not what equality is, though. Equality is the action of treating everyone equally, regardless of their identity or circumstances beyond their control. It does not involve excluding people who happen to be the wrong gender, just because lots of other people of that gender have worked hard, sacrificed a lot and done whatever it takes to reach their goals.
Equality of opportunity is there. Females are the only people preventing females from participating in motorsport. Most females prefer to pursue other paths in life. Choice.
Actually, most males prefer to pursue other paths in life too….
Apart from the fact that there isn’t a motor racing series in the world that excludes females by rule or regulation – of the 50% of the population that are (or wish to be identified as) female, how many actually want to go car racing?
Talk about limiting the talent pool….
That’s W-series’ biggest flaw. It’s just a terrible competition because only a couple of them are actually ready to be at that level. To get ready to compete at that level, they need to chip away at it just like every male (and the occasional female) has had to do. When they are ready for the global stage, they will compete against others who are also ready to compete on that stage.
At least with the open (non-gender specific) racing series, if a female is good, she’ll compete directly with, and beat a lot of males. That does far more for the image of female racing drivers IMO than cordoning them off in their own little series.
I honestly don’t see either series fulfilling any goal they set. W-series has already gone broke, and probably made it even harder for the drivers who participated in it.
When the best one is still not achieving anything anywhere else, what hope do the rest have to find some support?
Icantbelieveitsnotbetter
20th December 2022, 10:15
Whereas there are motor racing series that specifically exclude males…now that is discrimination.
Hazel Southwell (@hazelsouthwell)
20th December 2022, 11:12
“Equality is the action of treating everyone equally, regardless of their identity or circumstances beyond their control.”
Yes. That means giving people equal opportunities: historically women have not had equal opportunities in motorsport, including being banned from participation in multiple countries through the 20th and 21st centuries. So, that is a little bit different from sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “nothing needs to be done about this, there are no problems”
You cannot decontextualise a situation from its historic context. There is no switch to flick and say you’ve turned off the inequality settings.
S
20th December 2022, 11:39
Okay then.
If equality is a result on a scoreboard (equalising history), then please tell me exactly when equality will be reached and what it will take to even the score?
Hundreds or thousands of years of male oppression? Decades of sexual discrimination against anyone who identifies as male? Quotas or other artificial means to create ‘representation?’
You’re absolutely right -if that’s what equality means to you then there is no switch to flick. Even if your version of equality were ‘reached’ it can never persist. It would be a constant back-and-forth for infinity, forever attempting to balance the previous round of discrimination.
I ask you a question.
Given the choice of only these two options; would you prefer the world to stay exactly as it was prior to W-series, or for society as a whole to ‘flick the switch’ and treat everyone equally, regardless of their individual personal traits?
An imbalanced, broken, re-writing of historical inequality that inevitably creates present and future division, or moving on from things that can never be changed to a positive future where everyone has an equal chance?
Surely you must agree – trying in vain to undo the past is not the way to create a better future?
T
20th December 2022, 12:28
You just did it again S,
You’re decoupling contextual retrospective from the situation at hand.
And that’s not withstanding your blatant bad faith interpretations of Hazel’s words.
F1 frog (@f1frog)
20th December 2022, 13:41
I agree with @hazelsouthwell. Women do have equal opportunities to men to get into motor racing right now, but the historical context plays a part in why there are far fewer of them who want to do it. In time, I’m sure this would even out, but it would take far longer if the historical context would be completely ignored.
The likes of W Series and F1 Academy play a small part in helping this, but I think really the change needs to come lower down with karting clubs. Imagine there is a local karting club with 20 places available. Most likely around 17-19 of those will be filled by boys and 1-3 by girls. This is probably a societal thing mainly (caused by the historical context of motor racing being thought of as a sport for men), and not something that F1 can change any time soon.
But I would guess that a girl who went to that karting club would enjoy it less than a boy who was equally into motor racing beforehand, and so would be less likely to want to move up to the next level (considering how expensive and time-consuming it is), as a result of being intimidated by being so heavily outnumbered. I know that I would have been when I was a child if everyone else at my hobby were girls. As a result, the number of females at the higher level of karting is far lower than 1-3 out of 20, and it would perhaps continue to decrease all the way up the ladder until there are no female drivers anywhere near F1-level.
I doubt that there will ever be equal numbers of men and women in motor racing, but think this would help even things out a bit more.
MichaelN
20th December 2022, 14:19
Not necessarily, @f1frog. A lot of careers and even hobby’s trend heavily towards either male or female. Wanting the male to female ratio in motorsport to ‘even out’ might be setting a goal for the FIA’s programs that is neither realistic nor desirable.
So long as people are able to participate in motorsport, which @hazelsouthwell rightly notes wasn’t (and perhaps isn’t, I’m not sure) always the case, then a wide variety of factors other than their sex* will determine how far they can get on the ladder.
*Money. It’s mostly money.
Keith Campbell (@keithedin)
20th December 2022, 8:29
Unsurprising, but this will not achieve what they’re hoping for. This won’t stop a driver like Hamilton from speaking out for his beliefs, and whatever sanctions they can dole out will be counterproductive. This will just draw more attention to drivers who do choose to speak out in defiance of this rule. Therefore, probably a positive change overall despite their best efforts.
Keith Campbell (@keithedin)
20th December 2022, 8:30
Edit – not meant as a reply.
S
20th December 2022, 9:25
If a driver like Hamilton does, I do really hope the FIA take the opportunity to earn some respect by backing up what they just said. Actually apply a discouraging penalty.
Ban the driver for breach of ISC rules.
They are all free to speak through their own media channels as F1 no longer prevents them from doing so – it would be respectful to allow F1 to choose what goes through theirs.
Because, you know… Respect works both ways.
anon2
20th December 2022, 11:54
“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.”
For the love of whatever you adore, read the article and smell the smoke. Smell the freaking carte blanche the FIA just handed themselves and stop getting off how the ruling may hurt the driver(s) you don’t particularly care for.
gardenfella (@gardenfella72)
20th December 2022, 13:09
And there it is, S. You finally said the quiet part out loud. You’re just gleeful at the prospect of another stick with which to beat Hamilton
S
20th December 2022, 13:22
@keithedin says:
And my reply followed in context, using the same example.
So obviously I just pulled Hamilton’s name up because I have something against him…. Righto.
It seems to me that both anon2 and @gardenfella72 just put their own interpretations on this.
gardenfella (@gardenfella72)
21st December 2022, 13:35
That’s disingenuous at best, S. You have made your anti-Hamilton stance well known on many previous occasions
Keith Campbell (@keithedin)
20th December 2022, 13:45
Good luck with that. There is zero chance the FIA will ban or implement any sporting penalty on Hamilton for voicing his opinions. At most, they will issue a meaningless fine which he will be happy to pay because it will bring more publicity to his message. And good on him or anyone else who uses their platform to try to spread positive messages and educate fans who might otherwise be unaware of certain issues in the world.
S
20th December 2022, 14:39
Indeed. Just like F1’s rules, it’s a game – is the penalty worth the crime….
And you mention the perfect point (that I also made before)…
Their platform. Not F1’s platform.
Hamilton (since you’ve mentioned him again) has been a bit quieter on F1’s time about that stuff of late, hasn’t he….
Phil Norman (@phil-f1-21)
20th December 2022, 15:28
+ 1
Bradders (@bradders)
20th December 2022, 12:12
You find that objectionable? Sigh.
Armchair Expert (@armchairexpert)
20th December 2022, 7:53
Wait, you thought #WeRaceAsOne was for real? Hahaha.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th December 2022, 20:51
@armchairexpert The drivers meant it. Which is one of the things that scares the FIA.
Zann (@zann)
20th December 2022, 7:59
Troll city with this one! It is a disgrace though, comes from letting countries buy F1 and FIA with it.
S
20th December 2022, 9:21
What do you mean?
How far back in history do we have to look for an F1 GP event that wasn’t ‘bought?’ The 50’s? 60’s?
You just don’t like who it bought it.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th December 2022, 20:01
1980. Circuits only started to get bought when Bernie Ecclestone took power.
Zann (@zann)
20th December 2022, 21:06
It’s the governing body that’s been bought, and the rules, not a race. But troll city as I said, 100+ posts later, who knows what you actually think.
S
20th December 2022, 22:47
Bought by who? F1 is a business who cooperate with their customers.
There a millions of other businesses around the world who also act in a culturally and politically sensitive manner during international relations.
You don’t alienate your business partners by imposing your own (or someone else’s) arbitrary standards on them.
SadF1fan
20th December 2022, 8:16
FIA also watched the FIFA World Cup and wants the same.
Phil Norman (@phil-f1-21)
20th December 2022, 15:30
Do you know I actually think you are correct here SadF1fan. They have probably been wanting to do this and have seen that FIFA has gotten away with it pretty much. Everyone is now talking about the football and not the human rights issues in places like Qatar.
slowmo (@slowmo)
20th December 2022, 8:56
Seems more likely a move to avoid drivers embarrassing hosts with appalling human rights records. Can’t let those pesky drivers get in the way of sports washing and all the money that brings into the FIA’s coffers. This will back fire on the FIA and not actually silence the drivers.
Phil Norman (@phil-f1-21)
20th December 2022, 15:31
@slowmo I do hope so. I really do.
Proesterchen (@proesterchen)
20th December 2022, 9:29
This is untenable.
The idea that participation in a sport would require one to agree to only publicize opinions approved by its governing body highly politicizes every position of power at said governing body.
MichaelN
20th December 2022, 14:45
@proesterchen It’s not really that untenable. How many drivers have been remotely politically involved? Whatever their private beliefs, they are more than capable to make them secondary to their desire to participate in the races. They’re no different from footballers going to Qatar, swimmers going to communist China, or alpine skiers going to the USA.
Or, for that matter, everyone else. I doubt even a single letter on this page was typed on a keyboard not made in China.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th December 2022, 20:00
Given how broad “political” is, all of them. Certainly from Russia’s and China’s perspective, they all acted politically in stepping into their F1 cars to start the 2022 season in the first place, let alone anything else they did.
S
20th December 2022, 22:51
Geez. How political do you want everything to be?
Learn to separate all the different kinds of politics.
petebaldwin (@)
20th December 2022, 9:32
The right wingers on here will love it because despite banging on about free speech when they want to defend someone saying something discriminatory, it’s not such a good thing when someone says something they don’t like.
It’s an easy rule to bring in now that Vettel has gone because he was the only one who is willing to sacrifice anything for his beliefs. There’s no doubt that if these rules were brought in whilst he was still racing, he’d completely ignore them and would challenge the FIA to punish him for it (which would be an absolute PR disaster for them). We’ll see where the priorities of the other drivers who have previously been vocal actually lie now – it’ll certainly establish who has been virtue signalling and who actually means what they say.
anon
20th December 2022, 9:52
@petebaldwin you can probably expect the poster known as S to begin targeting you for daring to say that.
S
20th December 2022, 10:56
I certainly expected a poster named ‘anon’ to point the finger at me…
If anon is right, and that is me, then it’s wrong. I enjoy it when someone has a different opinion to what I express (whether I fully support it personally or merely use it for the purpose of conversation and debate).
The fact is that the FIA aren’t limiting free speech in any way – it’s amazing that people can’t (or, more accurately, won’t) see it that way.
Who’s really needs to complain that less than 0.1% of the worlds media is to be respected by certain rules?
The Olympics did the same thing, and practically nobody noticed.
Simon Hetherington
20th December 2022, 11:44
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Thank you for providing some lunchtime amusement.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th December 2022, 19:55
In US law, they’re not, since free speech only relates to citizens’ relationship with the government, and the government is not a direct party in this case.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th December 2022, 19:59
S, you may be the only person interested in international sport who did not notice that the Olympics did the same thing. Nearly everyone who I saw who had an interest in international sport said the Olympic rule was rubbish and needed to be scrapped.
The FIA has the further hurdle that in handling the matter the way it has, it has shown such extreme hypocrisy that it has endangered its future existence. (I’ll see if you can work out why).
S
20th December 2022, 23:05
The final sentence in the comment you replied to…..
…..
Good for them for having their own opinions.
Needless to say, most people who watch (or even participate in) the Olympics (and all other sports/sporting events) do so for the sport, and not for the exploitation of the media space for hijacking, politicking and virtue signalling by those not in control or ownership of it.
It’s really about respect.
If the only people who aren’t happy are those who want to derail and disrupt, then I think that’s some pretty good policy.
The FIA are doing nothing wrong here.
If the proverbial sky really was falling, though, I look forward to seeing it. That would be interesting, even if only for the sheer unlikelihood of it.
Keith Campbell (@keithedin)
20th December 2022, 13:52
@petebaldwin Completely agree, and i hope it applies to drivers other than just Vettel and Hamilton who are too big to the sport to fear any real consequences the FIA could throw at them. Which is why i somewhat optimistically am saying this have the opposite effect and actually draw even more attention to the issues they are trying to sweep under the carpet.
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
20th December 2022, 9:39
How does neutrality work when they agree to go certain places and make agreements with certain companies?
Hope drivers don’t follow these guidelines
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th December 2022, 19:54
@fer-no65 The FIA is established within the laws of a particular place, and has a particular purpose. It already can’t be neutral.
The act of being involved with an FIA activity is not politically neutral. I wish the FIA had tried thinking through the consequences before trying to regulate this.
Dex
20th December 2022, 9:56
There goes freedom of speech, a fundamental human right. All to protect their pals with oil drills. Since when do we accept official censorship in XXI century? So political statements aren’t banned as such, but they must be approved ones. :))
dot_com (@dot_com)
20th December 2022, 14:09
But you see, the drivers do still have freedom of speech. Just not so much within the organization that they work for. Just like the real world. In the same way that my job would be in jeopardy if I were to start telling people in the office that they should be pro-life, or that they should believe this or that. There’s a time and place for everything. These drivers have millions of followers on social media, they have more opportunity than most to voice their opinions to the masses. They don’t need to bring it to the track. I 100% support this clampdown and hope that FIA have the balls to back it up.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th December 2022, 19:52
@dot_com And thanks to this rule, their use of social media is somewhat limited. Now they cannot safely say anything political unless they can make it very obvious that it’s not linked to their motorsport involvement.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th December 2022, 19:53
Also, due to lack of thought from the FIA, that means they can’t have opinions on anything that isn’t patently obvious at the circuit, since even opinions on incidents on-track could be perceived as political if the FIA is having a bad day (it’s done so in the past…)
S
20th December 2022, 23:13
Incorrect.
Drivers’ personal use of social media is limited only by their own personal/management standards and those of the social media provider. They are free to being up any topic, just the same as any other person in the world.
Drivers are only, let’s say ‘restricted’, when they are actively representing F1 and, by extension, the FIA.
Do you send out your own personal ideas to the media on your employer’s behalf without their consent?
The FIA are simply asking drivers not to.
Sam
20th December 2022, 10:08
In relation to sport being a-political, would Saudi Arabia be putting up this level of funds if it actually was a liberal democracy with protection for its citizens (and foreign labourers) and a decent welfare state? Is Saudi Arabia primarily effectively paying to improve its image, an image that only needs fixing because of the political choices of their leaders?
I am not sure we can simply see a financial transaction with Saudi Arabia as purely a-political.
S
20th December 2022, 11:07
Are any of the European, American (North and South), Asian and/or Australian governments effectively paying to improve their image? Of course they are. That’s what buying big international events is all about.
And the difference with Saudi Arabia is…?
If Saudi is ‘sportswashing’ then so is everyone else.
Sam
20th December 2022, 13:15
There is a massive difference between 1: Saudia Arabia trying to improve their image through F1 to then attract tourism and business deals and 2: the UK, Germany or France already having a good image and using F1 to gain money though tourism and business deals.
S
20th December 2022, 13:26
Subjectively speaking, there is, yeah. Depends on how you want to see it.
MichaelN
20th December 2022, 14:31
It’s actually fairly easy to point to places on the map where those countries don’t have a good image. Especially in the case of the UK you can pretty much randomly point to the map and so long as you don’t hit an ocean you’ll probably find one within one or two tries.
The FIA represents all its constituent member organizations. It has to be a neutral platform focused on issues of road transportation, motorsport, and the like. The motoring clubs from France or Brazil are just as much a part of the FIA as those from Kenya, Russia, Saudi Arabia or Thailand.
Liberty is going to dislike this. They love putting all the obscenities and moaning about fellow competitors in their Team Radio highlights.
MichaelN
20th December 2022, 16:44
Amusingly given the article, an earlier response fell afoul of the censors. But to briefly summarize: you may have a good image of those countries, but that’s not universal. When F1 travels the globe, it does so as guests.
They could be more selective of where they go, but whose standards would that be based on? The FIA is a global organization representing all of its members.
Sam
20th December 2022, 22:29
Which standards? How about countries which make a genuine effort to protect and promote human rights.
S
20th December 2022, 23:16
The FIA is an automotive alliance and motorsport series owner, Sam, not a human rights organisation.
They are taking a neutral stance, as in not getting involved either way.
Because that’s what neutral means…..
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th December 2022, 19:50
i think Saudi Arabia would still put this money into improving its image, and would likely direct a lot of it at sport (since it’s a niche that it is in a relatively good position to get returns on, simply because of its economy and geography).
The difference is everyone else’s reaction to that expenditure.
Richard Head
20th December 2022, 10:43
The FIA claims equal rights regardless of race, yet still discriminates towards Russian drivers and convieniently dropped its anti racism message as soon as it started doing so. The FIA is very hypocritical sometimes..
MichaelN
20th December 2022, 14:33
Not quite. Russian (nationality) drivers can participate in FIA events just fine. They just cannot do so as a Russian (FIA license) driver.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th December 2022, 19:48
Also, to my knowledge, one reason the Russian licensing authority isn’t there is because the old NSA was so closely tied to Putin that the FIA would have risked being banned from existing had it continued to deal with it, and Russian law means any new NSA at this point would be obliged to also be too closely tied to Putin for the FIA to be legally safe to deal with it.
If Russian law was such that close alliance with Putin was not essential to be an NSA, it is likely that the policy would soften to the extent permitted by French law. Note that the FIA is bound by French law so its neutrality will always be limited in that sense.
Xatisha
20th December 2022, 10:56
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.
The drivers are still free to say whatever libel they want, but they’ll have to bear personal responsibility for it. The only people who’ll ever get into trouble by this are the likes of Verstappen and Piquet anyways. An all around good change.
hunocsi (@hunocsi)
20th December 2022, 11:03
Come onnnnn. And I assume if drivers complain about this rule, they will get a penalty by default, right?
BasCB (@bascb)
20th December 2022, 11:24
Obviously, yeah @hunocsi!
Brian (@bealzbob)
20th December 2022, 12:07
Old habits die hard I guess, Mr. Ben Sulayem. I guess freedom of expression was really getting under his skin. He’ll sleep much better now.
Brian (@bealzbob)
20th December 2022, 12:37
Now it seems this was already the case? So what development; if any; has happened ?
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th December 2022, 19:45
@bealzbob The fact that everyone, including the FIA, refused to obey the regulation!
Tommy C (@tommy-c)
20th December 2022, 12:27
This sounds like the FIA getting into some murky waters. What defines political? Is showing support for minority groups political? That’s subtly different to criticising the stance of a country. Is showing your support for the planet’s wellbeing political? Or only if you specifically criticise a country’s policy? It’ll be interesting to see where the line is drawn.
Craig
20th December 2022, 12:43
Definition is the problem as things like this are kept deliberately vague so it can be used on almost anything. People tend to forget how broad the term “political” actually is.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th December 2022, 19:45
As does the FIA. The wording of the regulation used to ban political speech in the ISC is itself political.
Addme (@dontme)
20th December 2022, 14:38
It’s easy. If the group that pays a lot of money might feel offended it’s not allowed.
Jason (@jasonj)
20th December 2022, 12:38
I dislike politicising the sport on the whims of a few egomaniac’s with personal axes to grind, but narrowing of personal opinions down to sanctioned speech only is abhorrent. Who knows if the FIA takes a quick and nasty stance on some hot button topic in the near future. The FIA management are not exactly a brain trust, they are clearly a bunch of bureaucrats hustling for power to micromanage everyone under the perview. It was only a couple of weeks ago they were banging on about transparency being their highest priority, which completely contradicts the muzzling of others opinions, you cannot have transparency while silencing uncomfortable thoughts.
If you rewind this back a few years, the safety push by drivers would have been scuttled by this rule (yes, I know these draconian sets of rules and attitudes have always existed.) Sanctioned speech is not speech, it’s parroting PR and marketing drivel endlessly. No personality will be tolerated. Here are your lines, you must express them like this…..
gardenfella (@gardenfella72)
20th December 2022, 13:11
@jasonj almost as if someone in the FIA comes from high up in a totalitarian regime
Phil Norman (@phil-f1-21)
20th December 2022, 15:44
+ 1
Nulla Pax (@nullapax)
20th December 2022, 14:36
Fascists.
Broccoliface
20th December 2022, 14:53
*insert popcorn eating gif here*
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
20th December 2022, 15:07
I think it’s time to get rid of Ben Sulayem. Between the Red Bull overspending and this, I think he has proven quite convincingly that he’s not up to the task.
Phil Norman (@phil-f1-21)
20th December 2022, 15:41
Ben Sulayem, FIA and Liberty showing their true colours at last. They don’t want those pesky drivers with a conscience showing up their paymasters in Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Azerbaijan, etc. They care for nothing more than bringing in the big money and everything else can fall by the wayside.
Domenicali and the others will stay silent and take their pieces of silver. Greedy, weak and shallow the lot of them. They almost make Ecclestone seem quite transparent.
I really hope one or two of the drivers make a fuss about this. They have seen the back of Vettel and I bet they cannot wait for Hamilton to retire.
Erik
20th December 2022, 16:15
Drivers are owned by F1 and FIA. F1 and FIA were politically and economically harrassing russians by the instructions from fake covid terrorists. Making money is one thing but bending over for license to make money is another thing.
Poor men making statements about fake agendas are just lost anf confused.
Formula E is with its house size diesel generators beautiful example of FIAs hyppocracy.
Mr. Pug (@mr-pug)
20th December 2022, 17:29
This isn’t depoliticizing F1, this is just removing any potential dissent to the politics of those who write the biggest checks. From boxing championships to the Olympics to the World Cup, oppressive regimes have used major sporting events to showcase themselves to the world while covering up their abuses for decades. That F1 is happy to enable this is sad but not surprising from a sport that raced in apartheid South Africa for 23 years and only left when mass boycotts occurred.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th December 2022, 19:43
@mr-pug I don’t think the FIA realises the extent to which this politicises motorsport.
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
20th December 2022, 17:56
Don’t like this either, seems against freedom of speech.
Edvaldo
20th December 2022, 18:13
Embarrassing.
JezH79
20th December 2022, 19:05
Outrageous. Criminal even. Freedom of speech is a civil right in the EU. The EU should ban the FIA as an organization. I have watched F1 races since 1992 and will not watch F1 in 2023 if the FIA is committing to this rule. Cancellation of my F1 TV subscription is done.
Jason Blankenship (@jblank)
20th December 2022, 20:19
The FIA isn’t a government ergo this isn’t a freedom of speech issue. They set the rules of the sport and those that don’t like it can cease driving or just keep the politics out of sport.
HC
20th December 2022, 19:16
This is basically only targeting Hamilton now that Vettel retired. I don’t see many other drivers making political statements.
Jason Blankenship (@jblank)
20th December 2022, 20:17
Good, let it target him then while the rest of them realize it’s not what people want out of F1. Politics out of sport.
HC
20th December 2022, 23:12
Well it’s just another thing they’re targeting him for, last time around this year it was his jewelery. They really have a massive hard-on for him.
I bet they all sit in a big room and say:
“Hamilton is very big in F1 right now, he is the most successful F1 driver of all time, but we don’t like him or his image or the things he says. How do we skate around all of that and put him in his place?”
stefano (@alfa145)
20th December 2022, 19:40
how could they even think that this is not a gigantic fail in the making
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th December 2022, 19:43
I hope the FIA realises that it is about to cost itself millions of dollars (since the wording of the regulations in the ISC puts the FIA at odds with, at minimum, China) and put its own continued existence into doubt…
Jason Blankenship (@jblank)
20th December 2022, 20:16
I love this and those of you that don’t like this need to question what you want sports to be. If you want left-wing virtue signaling, go watch the NBA or any of the million groups there are out there that moan about climate crap or the “oppression” of this group or that group. The rest of us want this stuff out of sports!
Edvaldo
20th December 2022, 20:47
I wonder why it annoys you so much.
I doesn’t make any difference for me. You’re free to take from the sport exactly what you want.
Jason Blankenship (@jblank)
20th December 2022, 22:07
Because when you inject politics into areas it doesn’t belong, it taints the experience. If you want politics go watch politics. I watch F1 for the racing.
Edvaldo
21st December 2022, 1:00
How does it taint the experience?
ryanoceros (@ryanoceros)
20th December 2022, 21:09
This is a necessary policy if F1’s business model requires payments from corrupt countries to succeed. The only reason they are profitable is because countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, and China will pay so much money to F1 to convince the world that they are real countries too. None of these governments would exist as they do today without the force and brutality they wield over their people. Drivers or teams speaking out against them is bad for business. This policy is not a good optic for F1 or the FIA. I’m interested in what the drivers have to say about this, particularly Lewis Hamilton.
Wheel Nut (@wheel-nut)
20th December 2022, 21:22
In the matter of rights there is no neutral, you are acting or allowing the abuse or curtailment of rights or you are against that. For example, racism is not just limited to the person who beats someone up or writes abusive messages on social media or who discriminates in job promotions but those who do nothing – don’t report it or call it out – you are either racist or anti-racist.
This statement by the FIA to be “neutral” is about maximising money and nothing about doing what is right. Ironically having been so explicit about it they have made themselves a target for various rights movements. By allowing some level of self-expression and free-speech, they would probably have maximised what they care about most. Linking your policy to the Olympics is very dubious given the history of alleged corruption.
S
20th December 2022, 23:21
That may or may not be the case, depending on personal opinion – but this isn’t about human rights. This is about the FIA’s business and the conduct of those who represent it.
Dane
20th December 2022, 22:20
Is this just race during weekends or otherwise official F1 duties or does it also include social media and non-F1 related public appearances?
Mr_NovemberHotel (@nicharvs)
20th December 2022, 22:27
I have a contract with company for them to complete a task. Thier employee’s have to wear a uniform that represents thier company. If an employee of that company wishes to wear something that is not described in thier company uniform then they have to request permission from me and it will be assessed, case by case. This is a standard practice across the professional world. I do not see why it should be any different in formula 1. The mechanics are not seen to promote causes they support of believe in. If the drivers wish to push thier agendas they can do so through sponsor endorsements, but they’re probably not likely due to it limiting thier bargaining potential.
I see alot of comments saying that f1 shouldn’t race in some countries due to civil rights issues and corruption, etc. Whilst I agree with these points, my interest in f1 is greater than my political investment, so I’ll still watch it. I dont hear of the millions boycotting these races or refusing to watch or drivers or teams threatening to pull out. My point is, everyone complains but they’ll still watch.
Jason (@jasonj)
20th December 2022, 23:22
The way I see it, is this isn’t a contract with the company you work for, this is more ‘if you want to work in this industry, you have to rubber stamp and agree to a very specific, randomly changes set of value statements or you’ll be banned from the industry’s
It’s different when a driver is contracted to Sauber/Ferrari/Mercedes/Red Bull, those companies have their own policies, but what the FIA is saying is that no matter who you drive for, we are crushing your ability to unsanctioned speech on every topic imaginable. So while Ferrari may approve of employees expressing views, the FIA will heavily penalise and potentially drive out talent that isn’t fully submissive to it’s whims, and who knows what their whims will be in 3 months, 2 years etc.
You can now only speak approved lines from the FIA PR machine or they’ll eventually remove you from the industry.
Mr_NovemberHotel (@nicharvs)
20th December 2022, 23:45
Alot of companies do not work independently. The way I see it is the FIA is undertaking a project (f1) and the teams, circuits, FIA staff ect all comply to the rules described by the FIA. If anyone dressed in an unprofessional manner that was non approved or un sanctioned then the FIA should have the right to remove that person. If it was a construction site, where you have multiple sub contracted trades (similar to the relationship between the fia and f1 teams) working together in the same area then they all comply to the dress code of the FIA. Any variation of the dress code goes to the one responsible for the site, (the FIA are hold that responsibility in f1s case). F1 drivers do not have the right to use F1s platform to promote thier own views, that right is owned by liberty, and I can assure you that they have significant impact on how the FIA manages the sport, they have the right too
HC
20th December 2022, 23:57
Yeah, it’s called “moving the goalposts” which the FIA are guilty of doing all the damn time. If they see something they don’t like… Goalposts move in one direction. If they see something they do like: goalposts get moved in opposite direction.
They’re a fickle and hypocritical bunch. And also rich!
S
21st December 2022, 1:22
Perhaps you should start to see it that way.
The FIA own and run F1. F1 has two aspects here – competitors and media. All competitors and all official media outlets sign contracts with the FIA covering what they can and can’t do – if they breach those contracts, there are penalties.
The drivers are subcontracted/employed by the teams, and the teams contracted to F1.
Additionally, drivers must agree to compete under the FIA’s ISC in order to obtain and hold their racing licence.
There is no way in this structure that the drivers are free from the responsibility to uphold their immediate contractual obligations AND those of their employers.
Reminder – the drivers are free to continue to do whatever they want on their own time and under their own brand/image.
But when they are on F1’s clock and representing F1’s brand and business, they are expected to abide by all their contractual obligations.
Sounds perfectly fair to me.
If I don’t agree to my contractual obligations as an employee or subcontractor, then it’s perfectly likely that I can be penalised or have my contract terminated. Perhaps even more serious action can be taken.
And from my side, if I don’t want to do what I’ve agreed to, I can always quit….. Within the bounds of that contract, of course….
MPH
21st December 2022, 1:02
They could have just said ‘Shut up and drive, you do not get paid to think or have an opinion from Friday to Sunday on race weekends, you are just indentured labor’.
F1 drivers can be some of the most Influential voices on many topics, they should have a collective show of support against this new rule.
Instead of BS like this, the FIA should improve their enforcement of the rules that are already on the books
Sergey Martyn
21st December 2022, 14:13
Yes, “F1 drivers can be some of the most influential voices on many topics” (like say – car setups, race strategy, tyre choice etc.) but when it comes to politics they look like Greta Tunberg at best…
Khürt Williams (@khurtwilliams)
21st December 2022, 5:34
Are Hamilton‘s religious tattoos now forbidden?
Nulla Pax (@nullapax)
21st December 2022, 13:45
Not yet @khurtwilliams – but I’m sure the FIA will get right on it just as soon as some obscenely wealthy potential investor complains about them.
Sergey Martyn
21st December 2022, 14:08
At last!
P.S. Time to bring back the grid girls too!