FIA president wades into stewards debate: 'They think we're against the British'

When two young drivers Franco Colapinto and Arvid Lindblad were handed drive-through penalties for overtaking under yellow flags at the Dutch Grand Prix, few expected this decision to ignite a major controversy over the fairness of F1's stewarding system. FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem was forced to speak out amid a wave of criticism from Argentine and British fans, with accusations of racial and nationality bias. "They think we're against the British, but there are also people who think we're against the Argentines. The truth is we're not against anyone," Ben Sulayem said in an interview with an Italian sports newspaper. This statement came after a sponsor of Colapinto publicly questioned the FIA's integrity on social media, and Argentine fans flooded forums with harsh words. The incident began with Max Verstappen's crash on lap 1, forcing race organizers to wave yellow flags. According to FIA regulations, drivers are not allowed to overtake under yellow flags for safety reasons. However, Colapinto and Lindblad were judged to have violated this rule, resulting in drive-through penalties. Both disputed the decision, claiming they did not overtake dangerously and that the situation was unclear. "I don't understand why they penalized me. I slowed down and didn't overtake anyone," Colapinto told the media. Lindblad also expressed frustration: "This is a confusing decision, I think they made a mistake." Argentine fans, where Colapinto is a rising star, expressed outrage on social media. A sponsor of the driver, the head of a major energy company, wrote on Twitter: "The FIA is treating Franco unfairly. This is unacceptable." Meanwhile, in Britain, there were also whispers that stewards were "against" British drivers, especially when Lindblad, a young British driver, was also penalized. Some British commentators suggested there was bias against drivers from other countries. Ben Sulayem faced pressure from both sides. In the interview, he emphasized that the FIA is completely neutral and all decisions are based on evidence. "We have camera systems, telemetry data, and experienced stewards. There is no nationality bias," he said. However, he admitted that the communication of decisions needs improvement to avoid misunderstandings. "We need to explain more clearly to drivers and fans the reasons behind each decision." To address the issue, Ben Sulayem announced he would personally call Colapinto to explain the decision, a rare move from an FIA president. "I want to talk directly to him, so he understands we have no prejudice," he said. At the same time, he proposed a reform program: stewards would be rotated and trained through nominations from member clubs (ASNs). This aims to increase diversity and consistency in decisions, avoiding the suspicion of a fixed group of stewards being biased. In my analysis, rotating stewards is a step in the right direction, but it does not solve the root of the problem. The issue is not who the stewards are, but the lack of transparency in decisions. Drivers and fans need to understand why a decision is made and based on what evidence. If the FIA only changes personnel without improving the explanation process, suspicion will remain. Moreover, Ben Sulayem having to call a driver to appease public opinion shows that pressure from media and sponsors is influencing the behavior of the sport's most powerful body. There are 20 drivers on the track, but the real battle takes place between the brains of those in charge. The gray area is not where light is missing; it's where this sport is most real. When a stewarding decision is questioned, it not only affects the outcome of a race but also the trust of all fans. In F1 history, there have been many similar controversies, but never has the nationality issue been as prominent as now. This may be due to the growth of social media, where people easily express opinions and create waves of outrage. In F1 history, there have been many stewarding controversies, but never has the nationality issue become as central as it is now. In 2026, at the Adelaide race, Michael Schumacher and Damon Hill collided in a championship battle, and many believed Schumacher deliberately caused the accident. However, no nationality bias accusations were made, as both were European drivers. More recently, in the 2026 season, the title battle between Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen created many controversies over stewarding decisions, but no one accused stewards of bias based on nationality. This suggests that the current issue may stem from the sensitivity of fans from emerging nations like Argentina, where Colapinto is a national pride. The growth of social media has changed how fans react to stewarding decisions. Previously, when a controversial decision was made, fans could only express opinions through forums or call radio stations. Today, they can create campaigns on Twitter, Facebook, and even online petitions. This puts enormous pressure on the FIA, forcing them to respond quickly and publicly. However, this can also lead to decisions being influenced by public opinion rather than evidence alone. Another factor to consider is the role of sponsors. In Colapinto's case, a major sponsor publicly criticized the FIA, showing the power of money in this sport. Drivers with more sponsorship often have more influence, which can create inequality. The FIA must ensure that their decisions are not influenced by financial pressure and that every driver is treated fairly. To solve this problem, I propose that the FIA establish an independent stewarding panel, consisting of experts from various countries, unrelated to the teams. This panel would review controversial decisions and make final rulings. This would increase transparency and reduce suspicion of bias. Additionally, the FIA should publicly release evidence, including video and telemetry data, so fans can judge for themselves. This would increase public trust in the system. However, there is a counterargument that establishing an independent panel could slow down the decision-making process and create more controversy. In a fast-paced sport like F1, decisions need to be made quickly to avoid affecting race results. Waiting for an independent panel could take time and cause delays. Moreover, publicly releasing evidence could create pressure from public opinion, leading stewards to make decisions based on public reaction rather than rules. Another issue is whether rotating stewards is truly effective. F1 stewards are usually experienced individuals, and changing them frequently could lead to inconsistency in decisions. Each steward has their own interpretation of regulations, and rotation could create differences in handling similar situations. This could lead to unfairness, as drivers may not know in advance how a steward will rule. Ultimately, I believe the core issue is not who the stewards are, but the lack of transparency and communication. The FIA needs to improve how they convey decisions to the public, clearly explaining the reasons and evidence. This will help reduce misunderstandings and increase trust. Additionally, the FIA must ensure that stewards are well-trained and have sufficient resources to do their jobs. Only then can this sport develop sustainably and fairly. This controversy is not just about two penalties, but about fans' trust in the fairness of this sport. When every stewarding decision is scrutinized through the lens of nationality, no matter how many people sit in the stewards' seats, the problem will remain. Perhaps it's time for the FIA to be more transparent in publishing evidence and reasons for each decision, rather than relying solely on the authority of those who hold the scales. Only then can fans trust that this sport is managed fairly, without distinction of nationality or status.