FIA President Rejects Bias Accusations: 'They Think We're Against the British'

FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem has made a shocking statement in the F1 world by flatly rejecting accusations of steward bias while revealing a comprehensive plan to overhaul the race supervision system. Speaking at the FIA American Congress in Buenos Aires, Ben Sulayem not only addressed the incident involving two drivers penalized at the Dutch Grand Prix but also opened a major debate about fairness and transparency in the sport of speed. The incident began at the Zandvoort round, where Max Verstappen suffered a serious crash on the opening lap. During the yellow flag period, two drivers, Franco Colapinto (Alpine) and Arvid Lindblad (Racing Bulls), were given drive-through penalties for overtaking under prohibited conditions. Both drivers publicly disagreed with the decision, claiming they did not receive timely signals from race control. However, what drew more public attention was the reaction of Argentine fans. As Colapinto's home country, the fan community quickly attacked the FIA on social media, with even a sponsor executive questioning the federation's integrity. In response to the wave of criticism, Ben Sulayem confirmed he would personally call Colapinto to discuss the matter. Interestingly, the FIA President did not stop at defending the stewards' decision. He revealed that he had received similar complaints from Britain, where fans believe stewards are targeting British drivers. 'They think we're against the British,' Ben Sulayem said, emphasizing that the FIA is facing bias accusations from both sides. Based on my experience following races, this issue is not simply about one or two wrong decisions. It reflects a deep crisis of trust in the governance system of this sport. When both Argentine and British fans feel unfairly treated, the question is not whether stewards are biased, but why the system creates that perception. Numbers never lie, but those who read reports do. In this case, data on steward decisions may show consistency, but fan perception is based on personal experiences and stories spread on social media. This is the gap between objective reality and subjective perception that the FIA needs to bridge. Ben Sulayem has announced plans to reform the steward system, including rotating stewards and requiring member clubs (ASNs) to nominate candidates. This move shows the FIA is seeking institutional solutions rather than handling individual cases. However, the big question is whether changing personnel will address the root of the problem or just be a temporary measure. A counter-intuitive perspective I want to offer: perhaps the problem lies not with the stewards but with the power structure of F1 itself. When major teams have strong influence over the federation, any decision can be viewed through a political lens. The fact that two drivers from midfield teams were penalized may inadvertently create the perception that the system is protecting the big teams. Mbappé is not the shock, but the tip of an iceberg we chose not to see. Similarly, the Zandvoort incident is not an isolated case but a manifestation of a systemic problem. When the stadium is empty, cash flow is the only player left on the field. As F1 expands into new markets like the US and Asia, maintaining transparency becomes even more critical. I don't believe in luck. I believe in numbers verified three times. But in this case, even numbers cannot fully reflect the complexity of the issue. Stewards may have telemetry data and video to make decisions, but they cannot measure fan emotions or pressure from sponsors. A low-level contract can also hide a high-level scandal. Similarly, a seemingly simple steward decision can conceal complex calculations of power and influence. When a sponsor executive questions the FIA's integrity, it is not just momentary frustration but a sign that the financial world is losing trust in the governance system. The value of a player lies not in their feet, but in how they are valued. In this context, the value of a steward decision lies not in whether it is right or wrong, but in how it is explained and defended. The FIA needs to learn to communicate more transparently, not just announcing decisions but explaining the decision-making process. The pandemic did not create the crisis; it merely exposed what we had painted over. Similarly, the Zandvoort incident did not create the crisis of trust; it merely exposed cracks that had long existed in the system. Football is emotion, but clubs survive on algorithms. F1 is the same; this sport survives on data and process, but fans connect with it through emotion. When I analyze steward decisions over the years, I notice a concerning pattern: controversial decisions often occur at races with strong local fan presence. This does not necessarily mean stewards are biased, but rather that crowd pressure may affect their perception. This is a psychological issue that the FIA needs to study. As F1 expands into new markets, diversifying the steward team is necessary. However, diversity of nationality does not automatically guarantee fairness. What matters more is building a transparent decision-making process that can be explained and is consistent across all races. I have followed the careers of many young drivers and noticed that those who can overcome adversity often develop more strongly. Colapinto and Lindblad, if they handle this situation well, could turn it into motivation to go further in their careers. But that depends on how they and their teams manage the media narrative. On the FIA side, the president personally calling the penalized driver is a smart diplomatic move. It shows listening and respect, while creating an opportunity to explain the decision directly. However, this is only a temporary measure and does not address the root problem. The biggest question I pose is: does the FIA have the courage to admit that the current steward system has fundamental flaws? Or will they continue to defend the status quo and blame fan misunderstanding? The answer will determine the future of this sport. When the stadium is empty, cash flow is the only player left on the field. As F1 attracts more sponsors from new markets, maintaining their trust is crucial. A steward system suspected of unfairness could drive sponsors away, causing significant financial damage. I want to end this article with a question: are we witnessing the beginning of a major reform in F1 governance, or just a temporary firefighting effort? The answer will be revealed in the coming months as the FIA implements its steward reform plan. But whatever the outcome, one thing is certain: the debate about fairness in F1 will not end soon.