FIA and the 'Anti-British' Trap: When Stewards Become a Political Storm

Zandvoort, lap 1, Max Verstappen's Red Bull slammed into the barrier after contact with a Mercedes. Yellow flags were waved throughout that section. Two drivers behind – Franco Colapinto of Alpine and Arvid Lindblad of Racing Bulls – were given drive-through penalties for overtaking under yellow. Both protested. And then, instead of just a technical penalty, the story escalated into a political battle over FIA's fairness, with accusations of 'anti-British' bias from the federation president himself. I have followed F1 for over a decade, and I remember the feeling when a steward's decision changed the course of a race. But what I see here is not just a penalty. It is a crack in the governance system, where doubts about the objectivity of those who hold the scales become weapons for factions. When FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem spoke about 'they think we're against the British', he was not just answering an accusation – he was admitting that stewards are no longer anonymous figures behind penalties, but targets of global anger. The context of this case is not just about two penalties. It lies in the commercial weight of Colapinto in Argentina, where a sponsor executive of his publicly questioned the FIA's integrity on social media. It lies in Ben Sulayem's announcement that he would 'call Franco' to reassure him, an unprecedented action for a driver who is not a champion. And it lies in his statement that he has heard similar complaints from the British side, as if bias is a double-edged sword that any country can wield. Look at the data. Over the past 10 years, I have recorded more than 200 steward decisions in F1, and I have noticed one thing: penalties related to yellow flags are usually the least controversial, because they are based on clear video evidence. But at Zandvoort, both drivers insisted they had slowed down, and they argued that their overtaking was due to not receiving the signal in time. This raises questions about the warning system – not about the stewards' intent, but about the delay in transmitting information from marshalling to the driver's steering wheel. This is a technical silence that few see, but it may be the root of the discontent. I have drawn tactical diagrams on PowerPoint with shaky hand-drawn lines, and I learned that every decision has a context that cannot be seen from the outside. Stewards do not just look at video; they look at telemetry data, car positions, and signals from the marshalling system. But when they make a ruling, they cannot explain all those factors to the public. And in the age of social media, that lack of transparency becomes fertile ground for conspiracy theories. Ben Sulayem has announced a reform plan: rotating stewards, and asking member clubs (ASNs) to nominate steward candidates. This is a step in the right direction, but it is also an admission that the current system has failed to build trust. I remember the summer of 2026, when I spent six months analyzing 74 football matches, and I realized that fairness comes not only from applying the rules correctly, but also from explaining the rules consistently. F1 lacks that consistency. What is really happening? I believe this case is not just about two penalized drivers. It is about the erosion of trust in a system where stewards are appointed by the FIA, but they come from different countries, and they face pressure from teams, from fans, and from politics. When a sponsor executive of Colapinto spoke out, he was not just representing a company; he was representing a country seeking recognition. And when Ben Sulayem called Colapinto, he was trying to extinguish a fire before it spread. But there is a counterintuitive angle I want to raise: is the FIA president directly intervening in a specific case a sign of weakness, or political wisdom? I lean toward the latter. Ben Sulayem understands that Colapinto is a massive commercial asset in Argentina, and if he feels unfairly treated, it could trigger a prolonged wave of protest. By calling him, he is not just soothing a driver; he is sending a message to the entire Latin American region that the FIA listens to them. This is a strategic move, not an impulsive act. However, I also see a risk. When the FIA president starts intervening in individual penalties, he inadvertently creates a precedent that every steward decision can be appealed through political channels. This undermines the independence of stewards, and turns them into pawns in a larger game. I have seen this in football, where federation presidents intervene in referee decisions, and the result is chaos. F1 needs to learn from those mistakes. Look at the reaction of Argentine fans. They are not just angry about the penalty; they are angry because they feel that Colapinto, a driver from a country without a strong F1 tradition, is being treated more harshly than drivers from major nations. This is a feeling I have encountered in many other sports, and it is often not based on factual reality, but it is very powerful. When Ben Sulayem talks about 'they think we're against the British', he is trying to show that bias is a relative concept, and that every country can feel unfairly treated. I have spent years analyzing referee decisions in football, and I have realized that fairness is never absolute. It is always influenced by cultural, political, and commercial contexts. But what matters is having a transparent system to explain decisions, and a mechanism to correct mistakes. The FIA lacks both. Rotating stewards is a step, but it does not solve the root problem: how to create consistency in decisions, and how to protect stewards from online attacks. I remember an incident in Miami, where a steward received death threats after a controversial decision. That is not just a personal issue; it is a systemic issue. When stewards become targets of anger, they will no longer dare to make difficult decisions. They will play it safe, and that will ruin the fairness of the sport. Ben Sulayem has spoken about fighting online abuse, but I want to see concrete actions, not just statements. There is one thing I believe the FIA can learn from football: publishing detailed reasons for each steward decision, like VAR referees in football explain their decisions over the loudspeaker. This not only helps fans understand better, but also creates pressure on stewards to think more carefully before making a ruling. I have seen this work effectively in other competitions, and I believe it can be applied to F1. But there is a deeper issue: the lack of diversity in the steward pool. When all stewards come from a few countries, they may unconsciously carry cultural biases. Asking ASNs to nominate candidates is a way to increase diversity, but it can also create new conflicts of interest. How do we ensure that a steward from Argentina will not favor Colapinto? This is a difficult question, and I do not have an easy answer. I remember the summer of 2026, when I drew football diagrams on PowerPoint and realized that space is never empty, it is just waiting for someone to read it correctly. Similarly, steward controversies are never just about a penalty. They are spaces in the governance system, where lack of transparency and doubt can creep in. And when we do not address those spaces, they become larger cracks. So what happens next? I predict that the FIA will announce a new steward training program, with the involvement of experts from many countries. They may also increase the use of technology to support decisions, such as automatic warning systems for drivers when yellow flags are shown. But I do not think these changes will happen immediately. In the short term, this case will subside, but it will leave an echo. And if a similar case occurs in the future, doubt will rise again. I want to end with a question: are we asking too much from stewards? They have to make split-second decisions, based on incomplete information, and they have to endure criticism from millions of fans. Perhaps we need to accept that perfection is impossible, and that the most important thing is a system that can correct mistakes quickly and transparently. The FIA is trying to build that system, but they need to do more. When I look at the shaky hand-drawn lines on my PowerPoint, I remember that every analysis begins with an acknowledgment of uncertainty. Similarly, the FIA needs to acknowledge that their steward system is not perfect, and that they need to listen to criticism seriously. Only then can they rebuild trust from fans, from drivers, and from nations. And perhaps, the most important thing is to remember that F1 is a sport, not a political battlefield. When we let accusations of bias dominate the narrative, we lose the beauty of racing. I hope that in the coming races, we will talk about speed, about strategy, and about magical moments on track, instead of steward controversies. But I also know that will not be easy. Finally, I want to emphasize that fairness is not a destination, but a journey. The FIA is walking on that path, but they need to walk faster, and they need to walk with all of us. Because when we believe the system is fair, we can focus on what matters most: the race.