FIA President Ben Sulayem and the fight against bias accusations at the Dutch GP: When the stewards' whistle becomes a political weapon

A single moment at the first corner of the Dutch Grand Prix created a storm entirely different from what is usually seen in the world of Formula 1. Max Verstappen crashed heavily on lap 1, forcing drivers to slow down under yellow flags. But instead of a technical debate about the cause of the collision, what followed was a crisis of trust that could reshape how the FIA governs the sport. Franco Colapinto of Alpine and Arvid Lindblad of Racing Bulls were given drive-through penalties for overtaking under yellow flag conditions, and immediately, a wave of outrage from Argentina targeted the impartiality of the stewards. FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem, in a shocking statement, revealed that he had heard similar accusations from the British side: 'They think we're against the British.' This remark opened a new dimension to the controversy: it was no longer about a single right or wrong decision, but a systemic issue of trust, nationality, and governance.

The context of the incident is quite clear. After Verstappen crashed on the opening lap, the drivers behind had to comply with the regulation not to overtake under yellow flags. Colapinto and Lindblad were determined to have breached this regulation and were handed drive-through penalties. Both drivers expressed their disagreement with the stewards' decision, claiming they had no intention of exploiting the situation. But the issue quickly moved beyond a mere sporting decision. Argentine fans, who have been passionate about Colapinto since his impressive debut, flooded social media with accusations that the FIA was 'targeting' the Argentine driver. An executive from one of Colapinto's sponsors went even further by publicly questioning the FIA's integrity on social platforms — a rare move from sponsors who usually maintain a neutral stance.

The situation became even more complicated when Ben Sulayem decided to intervene directly. In an interview in Buenos Aires, where the FIA hosted the American Congress, he not only defended the stewards' decision but also revealed that he would personally call Colapinto to explain. This move, though calming in intent, exposed a sensitive reality: pressure from the fan community and sponsors could force the head of the governing body to act beyond normal procedures. More importantly, his comment about the 'against the British' accusations showed that the nationality bias issue was not just an Argentine story. Ben Sulayem revealed that he had heard similar complaints from British stakeholders, creating a strangely symmetrical picture: both sides believed the FIA was against them, when in reality, this could simply be the result of a stewarding system lacking consistency.

Data on the yellow flag incident at Zandvoort reveals a core issue. If we accept that Colapinto and Lindblad did overtake under yellow flags, the bigger question is not 'whether they violated the rule' but 'whether the in-car conditions allowed them to react in time.' This is where the information-driven approach in sport becomes particularly important. A steward's decision, even if based on video data and sensors, always overlooks an unquantifiable component: the driver's perception at that moment. The fact that both drivers disagreed with the decision, while the stewards believed they had enough evidence, shows a gap in expectations. This gap, in many other sports, is closed by an on-site explanation mechanism: the referee would explain why they made the decision, the player could respond immediately, and the audience would understand the logic behind the call. But in F1, this process barely exists. Penalty notices are issued as dry documents, without detailed explanation, and drivers can only express their disagreement in public, creating fertile ground for bias narratives.

The pressure from Argentina is an undeniable factor. Colapinto is not just a driver; he is a multi-million dollar commercial product for Alpine in a rapidly growing Latin American market. A sponsor executive willing to question the FIA's integrity on social media does so not because he has deep knowledge of stewarding techniques, but because he is protecting a significant investment. The combination of fans' patriotism and sponsors' financial interests creates a formidable alliance: they do not need to prove the decision was wrong; they only need to sow doubt about its fairness. And in the age of social media, doubt spreads faster than truth. Ben Sulayem, seemingly aware of this risk, chose to face it head-on by calling Colapinto. This is a tacit admission that the issue is no longer about a technical decision, but about winning public trust.

The 'against the British' story that Ben Sulayem mentioned deserves closer analysis. If similar accusations exist from the British side, it suggests a deeper pattern: the problem is not that the FIA favors any specific nation, but that the current stewarding system makes all parties feel unfairly treated. This, from my experience observing F1 over many seasons, is quite similar to a phenomenon often seen in sports: when a controversial decision is not transparently explained, stakeholders will create their own narratives, and those narratives often carry bias or conspiracy tones. With many British drivers and teams based in the UK dominating the calendar, any decision affecting their results risks being labeled 'anti-British' by a section of fans. Similarly, any decision affecting Colapinto, the only Argentine driver on the grid, can be interpreted as 'anti-Argentina' in the context of cultural tensions between the two nations in international sporting history.

The contrarian angle here is: the nationality bias accusations, however exaggerated, are actually valuable information for the FIA itself. They expose the blind spots of the current governance system. When Argentines believe the stewards are against them and the British believe the same, the real problem is not who is right or wrong in any specific case, but that the system lacks the communication and accountability mechanisms that would allow people to trust the decisions. F1 stewards are professional and qualified, but they operate in a nearly anonymous structure: they have no 'voice' of their own, cannot explain their views publicly, and as a result, audiences only see a dry decision on paper. In that context, bias narratives have the conditions to thrive. An analytical framework only matures after being contradicted by reality, and here, reality is contradicting the 'silence is golden' approach of the stewards.

The solution proposed by Ben Sulayem, including asking FIA Member Clubs (ASNs) to nominate steward candidates for more regular training and rotation, is a step in the right direction but not sufficient. Increasing stewards' rotation across different racing series could bring diversity of perspective and reduce the risk of forming local alliances or biases. More regular training would help stewards update their knowledge of new situations and improve consistency. But a stewarding system needs more than just good decision-makers; it needs an effective communication mechanism. My mistake was named Kanté, and I do not want to forget it. In sport, wrong decisions are inevitable, but the inability to clearly and transparently explain a decision is a systemic error that can be fixed. The FIA should consider allowing stewards to provide direct explanations after each session, or at least publish detailed minutes about the reasoning behind each decision. This sounds simple, but in a sport that tends to be conservative with procedures, that would be a real revolution.

It should also be emphasized that the issue of online abuse towards stewards persists. After a steward in Miami received death threats, the FIA launched an anti-abuse campaign, but the Zandvoort incident shows the problem remains unresolved. When a sponsor of a penalized driver is willing to publicly question the FIA's integrity, he is fueling the culture of abuse, albeit possibly unintentionally. Labeling a stewards' decision as 'biased' without solid evidence not only puts pressure on specific stewards but also erodes the trust of the entire audience. Drivers also need to take responsibility: when they publicly disagree with a stewards' decision, they are speaking to their fanbase, who may take that message much further than the driver intended.

From a strategic perspective, Ben Sulayem's choice of Buenos Aires as the location to announce his reforms was not accidental. The FIA American Congress in Buenos Aires allowed him to send a direct message to the heart of the Argentine media storm. By announcing in the 'home' of Colapinto's fans that he would call the driver, he was maximizing the positive media impact. This is a skillful media move but also a double-edged sword. If that call is not made publicly or its outcome is not disclosed, the story could turn worse. Meanwhile, mentioning 'against the British' in the same speech could be a strategic message to establish symmetry: 'If all sides think we are biased, maybe we are not biased against anyone.' This approach, though logically coherent, risks being interpreted as comparing complaints from a major sporting power (Britain) with those from a culturally sensitive fan community like Argentina.

This story also raises a broader issue about governance in sport. In the fan-less season of 2026, the home advantage question changed completely: empty stadiums meant the home advantage was also empty. Similarly, in a sport where stewards' decisions are not publicly explained, transparency is absent and the 'trust advantage' disappears as well. A team or driver that feels unfairly treated will not only lose points in the standings but also lose faith in the system. The most dangerous thing is not a wrong decision, but a system that makes both parties feel unheard.

So what is the real lesson from this Dutch GP incident? It is that when sporting decisions are suspected of unfairness based on nationality, the issue is no longer about the stewards or the drivers. It lies in the communication structure of the sport. The FIA can argue that the punishments are correct under the rules, but if the audience does not understand why, and if stakeholders can freely attribute bias motives, then the process itself is operating unsustainably. Investing in steward training and rotation is necessary but not enough. A stronger commitment to accountability is needed: every time a controversial decision is made, explain it clearly, systematically, and promptly. That will reduce the space for bias narratives to grow.

Colapinto and Lindblad both believe they were treated unfairly. Argentine fans believe the FIA is targeting their driver. Some British stakeholders, according to Ben Sulayem, think the FIA is against them. When everyone feels they are being targeted, perhaps the issue is not who is being targeted, but that the system has left everyone in the dark. No one can measure trust, but just like data, trust must be nurtured with evidence. And in this sport of speed, the scarcest commodity is no longer speed — it is transparency.