Sporting governing bodies usually operate at their peak when they are unobtrusive, their influence subtle but definite, earning the approval of both athletes and spectators. However, when faced with dissatisfaction, critique, public grievances, and outspoken doubts concerning their competency, the situation can turn chaotic. The FIA, the regulatory body of Formula One, seems to be currently embroiled in such turmoil, which has engulfed the pit lane this week.
As the Australian Grand Prix loomed, the FIA might have expected a rather uneventful weekend under the Melbourne sun. The regulatory body possibly hoped its exoneration of President Mohammed Ben Sulayem, who was reportedly involved in potentially meddling with two grand prix races, would be overshadowed by the controversy involving Christian Horner and Red Bull. Unfortunately, this hope was dashed as the FIA endured a volley of severe criticisms, scrutinising every action—or lack thereof—by the beleaguered institution.
The situation deteriorated further, as only hours after Ben Sulayem’s clearance was declared on Wednesday, Susie Wolff, the managing director of the F1 Academy series, intended to file a criminal complaint against the FIA. The allegation she made was in relation to a conflict of interest investigation which the FIA had mounted against her and her husband, Toto Wolff, the principal of the Mercedes team, in December of the prior year. The baseless allegations had damaged their reputations and were found to have no basis and thus, no charges were made.
The disgruntled Wolff accused the FIA of intimidatory and sexist behaviour, made worse by the lack of explanation for instigating the investigation, a decision that seemed to be motivated by a single, unfounded media report. She has received widespread support from the entire F1 community. In Australia, Toto Wolff succinctly highlighted the significance of accountability, calling for concerns not to be ignored. He stressed the importance of thorough investigations in all areas, be it Wolff’s case or those involving other teams.
After Susie Wolff initiated her legal action, Lewis Hamilton, the foremost and most recognisable driver in the sport, made his lack of faith in Ben Sulayem strikingly clear. He criticised an absence of accountability within the FIA and the sport, sagaciously observing that fans would lose faith if it was allowed to persist.
The seven-time champion’s remarks must be taken into account, particularly as they appear to have been a long time coming. In 2022, just after Sulayem assumed the FIA presidency, Hamilton became the target of an excessively strict enforcement on wearing jewellery in the car. Such a policy appeared ludicrous to many, aptly compared to a butterfly on a wheel. Hamilton felt this rule was nonsensical, a sentiment echoed by most drivers and spectator.
At the time, Hamilton expressed optimism that he could collaborate with Sulayem. However, his recent comments in Melbourne indicate that he may have merely been playing the diplomat. His patience now clearly exhausted, two years on.
Hamilton was not the only one openly criticising. On Friday, criticism came in full force. The FIA’s accountability, transparency and effectiveness were under scrutiny in the team principals’ press conference.
Zak Brown, McLaren CEO, reiterated the swell of dissatisfaction. He criticised FIA’s internal investigation into Sulayem’s actions, highlighting that their process was not explained. “We didn’t get any explanation, either at the start or at the end,” he said.
He further elaborated, “We’re in 2024, not 1984, hence the need for complete transparency.” He added that until all the unresolved issues are sorted, people will persist in raising queries.
This negative reaction has increased the pressure on Sulayem. His presidency has been marred by continuous dispute and scandal. The events of the weekend could raise questions about his role and his future in the position.
Despite it being the end of business on Friday, the FIA had yet to voice their stance on Wolff’s legal proceedings, Hamilton’s comments, and the disparagement over the investigation including the issues that these three aspects have brought up concerning the underlying dissatisfaction with the governing body and its management style. The quiet resignation of a beleaguered manager, retreating to the sidelines, his team marching by with open contempt, signifies the loss of another crucial game. All these suggest an organisation steeped in controversy and internal conflicts.