Drivers who make unapproved “political, religious and personal statements” could be thrown out of races or handed massive fines under a new rule written into international regulations this week.
The FIA has inserted a clause into the International Sporting Code, world motorsport’s fundamental governance document, that bans drivers from making any statement deemed non-neutral by the governing body without prior written approval.
“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,” new regulation 12.2.1.n states.
Stream over 50 sports live and on demand with Kayo. New to Kayo? Start your free trial now >
The sporting code gives the governing body a wide array of possible penalties, ranging from a simple warning to the suspension of a competition licence and a maximum fine of €250,000 ($397,700).
The new rule banning what would appear to be a broad range of statements comes under article 12.2 of the code, which also includes the offences of bribery, fraud and cheating.
The introduction of the rule comes at a time of sharp focus on the intersection or sport and politics following the Qatar-hosted FIFA World Cup, where football’s governing body threatened players with sporting sanctions for wearing ‘one love’ rainbow armbands in a show of solidarity with nation’s LGBTIQ community.
FIFA also heavily criticised the media for reporting on migrant worker deaths and other social issues in the lead-up to the World Cup, with governing body president Gianni Infantino accusing Western coverage of the tournament of being hypocritical in his infamous ‘today I feel Qatari’ speech.
Formula 1’s approach to demonstrations of activism has been considerably more liberal by comparison, and the sport and the governing body have joined with drivers on several social issues, most notably with the ‘say no to racism’ gesture that preceded each race in 2020 and 2021.
Sebastian Vettel and Lewis Hamilton have been particularly prolific in their support of various social and environmental causes, and Hamilton was a driving force behind the sport taking a stance against racial injustice following the 2020 murder of George Floyd and the following anti-racism protests in the United States.
Most recently the Briton wore a rainbow-styled helmet bearing the words ‘we stand together’ for the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix last month.
But the FIA has been progressively adopting an increasingly stricter posture, and in the last year or so it’s moved to reduce opportunities for drivers to have their say.
One of Hamilton’s more notable protests came on the podium of the 2020 Tuscan Grand Prix, when he wore a T-shirt bearing the words ‘arrest the cops who killed Breonna Taylor’ on the front and ‘say her name’ on the back above a photo of Taylor, who was killed by police in a botched raid on her apartment that year.
The FIA subsequently changed its regulations to force drivers to wear zipped-up race suits during the podium ceremony and post-race formalities.
Vettel later attracted the attention of the stewards for wearing a ‘same love’ T-shirt on the grid at last year’s Hungarian Grand Prix in a show of support for LGBTIQ rights in the European nation, for which he received a reprimand.
He also earnt a rebuke from the Canadian government for a wearing a T-shirt calling for an end to unconventional oil extraction from the Athabasca tar sands, which National Geographic has described as “the world’s most destructive oil operation”.
The FIA’s broad neutrality stance would appear to rule these relatively high-profile but passive demonstrations illegal, but it would also leave in doubt the legality of significantly smaller demonstrations of faith. For example, Pierre Gasly routinely kneels on the grid to make a sign of the cross before each race, a religious “personal statement” that could now be banned.
The new clause could also be considered to contradict Formula 1’s justification for racing in countries with poor human rights records, which are a point of increasing tension between drivers, fans and the sport’s leadership.
After this year’s Saudi Arabian Grand Prix was almost halted by a driver protest following a missile strike on an oil facility near the circuit, F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali insisted that the sport had a role to play in accelerating social progress in the Middle Eastern kingdom as a reason for continuing with the race.
“We are not blind, but we don’t have to forget one thing: that this country, also through F1 and the sport on which we believe, is doing a massive step forward,” he said, per Autosport.
“You cannot pretend to change a culture that is more than a millennium in a blink of an eye. The resources they’re putting in place to move forward you can see here.
“I do believe that we are playing a very important role in the modernisation of this country.
“We are focused of course on making sure that these are the centre of our agenda.”
Such explicit politicisation of an event would be at risk of falling foul of the FIA sporting code.
In fact the new clause would also appear to fly in the face of the FIA’s own statutes, which explicitly support anti-discrimination, including through the active promotion of under-represented groups.
“The FIA 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,” article 1.2 says.
“The FIA will focus on under-represented groups in order to achieve a more balanced representation of gender and race and to create a more diverse and inclusive culture.”
MORE MOTORSPORT
‘VERY SPECIAL’ McLaughlin deserves F1 chance after IndyCar charge
‘EVERYONE HAS AN OPINION’: McLaren boss laments ‘unfair’ criticism of Ricciardo sacking
CALL THE DOCTOR: MotoGP legend announces shock BMW drive for the Bathurst 12 Hour
The FIA even regularly reminded drivers that it supported “any form of individual expression in accordance with the fundamental principles of its statutes” in event briefing notes in the past, though that statement has more recently dropped off official documentation.
It remains an open question whether Formula 1 stewards will feel a need to enforce the new rules. Own-motion stewarding investigations into potential breaches of the code are rare.
The F1 promoter might also be hoping the governing body isn’t overzealous in its application of the rules given the burgeoning popularity of the sport is built largely off the personalities of the drivers. Any curtailing of their freedom of expression could do considerable harm to the sport’s growth.
The FIA said in a statement overnight that it had inserted the clause to bring the code into line with the International Olympic Committee’s code of ethics a recognised sport federation.
The governing body’s president, Mohammed Ben Sulayem, courted controversy earlier in the year for appearing to criticise drivers for having interests outside the sport, with even Lando Norris’s high-profile push for greater awareness of mental health issues coming in for a whack.
“Niki Lauda and Alain Prost only cared about driving,” he said in an interview with GrandPrxi247.
“Now, Vettel drives a rainbow bicycle, Lewis is passionate about human rights and Norris addresses mental health.
“Everybody has the right to think. To me, it is about deciding whether we should impose our beliefs in something over the sport all the time.”
He subsequently backtracked on his comments via Twitter.
“As a driver, I have always believed in sport as a catalyst of progress in society,” he tweeted. “That is why promoting sustainability, diversity and inclusion is a key priority of my mandate.
“In the same way, I value the commitment of all drivers and champions for a better future.”
Whether promoting sustainability, diversity and inclusion are considered political or personal statements is unclear.