FIA president admits: 'They think we're against the British' - The crisis of trust in F1 stewards

Zandvoort, an ordinary Sunday in the Formula 1 season, became the starting point for a crisis that was not on the track. When Max Verstappen crashed into the barriers on the first lap of the Dutch Grand Prix, his heavily damaged car created an extended yellow flag period. During that time, Franco Colapinto of Alpine and Arvid Lindblad of Racing Bulls were given drive-through penalties for overtaking under yellow flag conditions. Two young drivers, two different teams, but the same anger. Both publicly rejected the stewards' decision. And from there, a routine disciplinary matter escalated into a controversy about fairness, nationality, and power in the sport. The incident seemed to stop at two penalties. But when the social media storm from Argentina erupted, with accusations that the FIA was 'against Argentina' because Colapinto was the only Argentine driver on the grid, the issue went beyond sporting discipline. An executive of a Colapinto sponsor publicly questioned the FIA's integrity on social media. The situation became so serious that FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem had to personally speak out, and pledged to call Colapinto to explain. But what made me pause was not the penalty, but Ben Sulayem's answer at the FIA Americas Congress in Buenos Aires. He said: 'They think we're against the British'. A seemingly shocking statement, but in reality a rare admission of a disease deeply embedded in F1's power structure: the systemic suspicion of the fairness of stewards. There are 22 cars on the track, but the real battle takes place between two brains. And in this case, the brain being questioned is the brain of those who hold the scales of justice. Look at the power structure of F1. The stewards, those who make decisions that can change an entire season, often come from a small group of countries with long racing traditions. They are appointed through national automobile clubs (ASNs), and most of them have backgrounds from Europe, especially Britain. When an Argentine driver is penalized, and a British driver is also penalized in the same event, suspicion of 'bias' becomes inevitable. Not because the stewards are actually biased, but because the lack of diversity in the decision-making body creates a gray area for suspicion. Ben Sulayem, in a move seen as reformative, has asked ASNs to nominate new steward candidates, and announced plans to rotate and train stewards. This is a step in the right direction structurally. But the question is: will changing the origins of decision-makers actually solve the root problem, or is it just a placebo for public opinion? I have followed F1 since my days as a journalism student in Turin, and I have witnessed too many steward controversies. From controversial penalties in Asian rounds, to decisions that caused outrage in Europe. The problem is never about a specific decision, but about the lack of consistency. A driver can be penalized 5 seconds for a collision in one round, but not penalized in another with a similar situation. This inconsistency, whether unintentional or intentional, has eroded the trust of fans and drivers. The gray area is not where light is missing. It is where football is most real. And in F1, that gray area is the gap between the written rules and how they are applied in practice. Consider Colapinto's case. He is a young, promising driver, carrying the expectations of an entire nation on his shoulders. Argentina, a country with a rich racing history but lacking representation in F1 for many years, has placed all its faith in him. When he was penalized, the feeling of being 'targeted' became strong. Not because the penalty was wrong, but because it touched a deep-seated pain: the feeling of being marginalized in a sport dominated by the British. Ben Sulayem, who comes from the United Arab Emirates, understands this feeling well. When he says 'They think we're against the British', he is reflecting an ironic reality: accusations of bias are coming from both sides. Argentines think the FIA is against them. The British, according to him, have similar complaints. When both sides feel unfairly treated, perhaps the problem is not bias, but the lack of transparency in the decision-making process. My World Cup theorem does not predict the champion. It predicts who will collapse first. And in this crisis, the system at risk of collapse is the FIA's stewarding system. Look at Ben Sulayem's reaction. He not only defended the stewards, but also admitted that they need better training and more diversity. He pledged to call Colapinto, a diplomatic gesture but also an admission that the issue has gone beyond discipline. When an FIA president has to personally call a driver to explain a penalty, it shows how much pressure the system is under. But I want to offer a counter-intuitive perspective. Will increasing diversity in the steward corps actually solve the problem? Or will it just create an illusion of fairness? I have witnessed too many cases in sports where people from different backgrounds are appointed just to 'showcase' diversity, while the decision-making process remains as opaque as ever. The problem is not who makes the decisions, but how they make them. I don't believe in titles. I believe in the system that produces titles. And the F1 stewarding system is operating in a way that creates suspicion, no matter how well-intentioned the people involved are. Look at history. After a steward in Miami received death threats, the FIA launched an anti-online-abuse campaign. But that campaign only addressed the tip of the iceberg. The root cause, the lack of consistency and transparency in decisions, remains. And when a new incident occurs, like the case of Colapinto and Lindblad, suspicion resurfaces stronger than ever. An empty stadium is not abnormal. An empty stadium is an operating room. And in this operating room, we are seeing cracks in the power structure of F1. Ben Sulayem has made an important statement, but does he have the courage to implement real reforms? Asking ASNs to nominate stewards is a step, but it needs to be accompanied by a mechanism to ensure that these new stewards are truly independent and competent, not just appointed for political reasons. And more importantly, the FIA needs to be more transparent in explaining its decisions. Instead of just issuing a dry penalty, they need to clearly explain why, based on what evidence, and why that penalty is appropriate. I have spent years analyzing tactical decisions in football, and I have realized that transparency is the key to trust. A coach can make a wrong decision, but if he clearly explains the reasons, fans will respect it. Conversely, a correct decision that is not explained will create suspicion. F1 is making the second mistake. Look at Lindblad's case. He is a young British driver, racing for Racing Bulls. When he was penalized, his supporters might feel that he was 'targeted' for being British in a sport dominated by the British. The irony is that the very dominance of the British creates a feeling that they are being 'targeted' when a decision goes against them. This is a paradox of power: when you are in a dominant position, any decision against you can be interpreted as reverse bias. Ben Sulayem is standing between two waves of suspicion. And his answer, 'They think we're against the British', shows that he is trying to navigate between two sides. But can he satisfy both? Or will he make both angry? I believe the solution lies not in changing the origins of the stewards, but in changing how they work. The FIA needs to build a stewarding system based on data and evidence, rather than on intuition and personal experience. They need to use technology to ensure consistency in decisions. And they need to make this data public so fans can judge for themselves. Every new contract is a hypothesis. The match is the experiment. And in this case, Ben Sulayem's steward reform plan is a hypothesis. We will see the results of this experiment in the coming races. But one thing is certain: this crisis has exposed a deep problem in the power structure of F1. The sport is growing faster than its governance system. Drivers come from all over the world, fans come from all over the world, but the decision-making system is still concentrated in a small group of countries. This imbalance creates a gray area for suspicion, and that gray area is growing. Esports taught me that the meta always changes. Football is the same, just one beat slower. And F1, with all its glamour, is also facing a meta change: from a sport dominated by the British to a global sport. The question is whether its governance system can keep up with this change. After two years of empty stadiums, I concluded: fans don't watch football. They watch themselves. And in F1, Argentine fans see themselves in Colapinto, British fans see themselves in Lindblad. When they feel 'their person' is treated unfairly, they feel they themselves are treated unfairly. And that is why this controversy is not just about two penalties, but about identity, about belonging, and about trust in a fair system. Ben Sulayem has acknowledged the problem. Now, the question is whether he can solve it. Will training and rotating stewards be enough to soothe the suspicion? Or does the FIA need to go further, changing its entire approach to decision-making? I don't have the answer. But I know that if the FIA doesn't act decisively, this crisis of trust will not stop at two young drivers. It will spread, and the sport will pay the price. There are 22 cars on the track, but the real battle takes place between two brains. And in this battle, the FIA's brain is being questioned. Can they regain trust? Or will they continue to let the gray area of suspicion grow?