Why the FIA can’t afford to silence F1 drivers
Nick Rewcastle, managing director of New Reach PR, outlines in SportsPro
how the FIA’s attempts to ban drivers from making political statements will have a devastating impact for the sport.
After considerable progress in very recent years, athletes have finally been given platforms to have a voice, discuss vital social and humanitarian issues and raise awareness for causes close to them.
After decades of resistance, and finally breakthrough, it would be disastrous for the walls to be rebuilt and athletes to be silenced.
Could the International Automobile Federation (FIA) be waving the red flag on its own sport, following in the footsteps on Fifa, soccer’s governing body, during the recent World Cup?
The FIA, the governing body for Formula One, is due to issue further guidelines to clarify the meaning of its new rule banning drivers from making political statements. In recent weeks, we have seen the likes of Lando Norris, George Russell and Sir Lewis Hamilton speak out against the FIA’s rule.
Seven-time world champion Hamilton is arguably one of the highest-profile and most successful sporting names to regularly drive purpose-led conversation across topics ranging from human rights to lifestyle choices. The British driver’s Instagram bio doesn’t state his success on the track, instead reading: ‘🌱 based. Living my purpose. Empowering those who may not realise their greatness. Equal rights for all. Love is love.’
The impact that Hamilton has had alone will not only have supported millions of people in hearing such a high-profile name address issues that resonate with them, but it also will have helped increase the commercial value of the sport through purpose-led brand advocacy. The power of the athlete voice is second to none, delivering emotional and commercial value across the world.
Some racing commentators believe that Hamilton’s activism has been the catalyst for the FIA’s decision, which was implemented earlier this year. The rule forbids ‘the general making and display of political, religious and personal statements or comments in violation of the general principle of neutrality promoted by the FIA under its statutes, unless previously approved in writing.’
As expected, human rights groups are up in arms, and have been over recent weeks, but only now are we hearing directly from those directly impacted: the drivers.
The FIA will no doubt have its reasons, likely citing commercial constraints and the stability of the sport. But the political landscape of the FIA, with the controversial Mohammed Ben Sulayem as its president, raises alarm bells. Whilst Ben Sulayem earlier this month announced that he would be taking a step back from direct involvement in Formula One, his tenure in the role has so far damaged the integrity of the sport.
His string of controversial decisions are accentuated by the lack of support from the Formula One itself, which is committed to providing a platform to raise awareness of issues around diversity and human rights. Formula One chief executive Stefano Domenicali has come out to say that the series would “never gag drivers”.
Despite the two bodies sharing the responsibility of running the hugely popular and commercial sport, unity appears to be some way off.
This breakdown has the power to devastate the sport. Without free speech for drivers, the sport will lose its talent who will perhaps seek new opportunities elsewhere in motorsport, which is seeing substantial growth as a whole. Without advocacy and purpose, many fans, groups and ultimately commercial partners will drop off. It’s not a world where voices can be silenced anymore – Fifa saw that last year, and the FIA is heading down a potentially destructive route.
What is reassuring to see is the harmony amongst drivers, teams and Formula One, who now seek answers from the FIA into what the “confusing” ruling actually means for them.
Share via:
About the Client
Team of the Week - 03.04.26
Team of the Week - 27.03.26
About the Client
Team of the Week - 20.03.26
Team of the Week - 13.03.26
Team of the Week - 06.03.26
A recent report from Sky News' Rob Harris has highlighted England players’ concerns about feeling pressured to speak out on political issues at major tournaments. Reading this was disappointing, but not surprising. It reflects a growing tension in modern sport: athletes sit at the centre of public conversation, yet many don’t feel supported, prepared or protected when that conversation turns political. Athlete platforms are powerful, their reach is undeniable. But that should not automatically mean they should be the frontline voices on every political or geopolitical issue. It's also fair to assume that not only to many not feel comfortable or qualified to hold that role. The burden of expectation Sporting bodies, brands and even fans now look to athletes to offer a stance whenever a sensitive global issue arises. The expectation is heavy, and the scrutiny is unforgiving. This raises an important question for the industry: Are we empowering athletes to use their platforms responsibly, or are we leaning on them to take positions that organisations themselves are hesitant to lead on? Too often, what starts as an opportunity for authenticity becomes a burden that athletes never asked to shoulder. Where athlete advocacy fits Athletes can, and do, drive meaningful social impact — especially when speaking from lived experience. And perhaps this is where the industry should be focusing its support. There is enormous value in athletes championing social and economic issues that feel natural, relevant and constructive, such as: Improving access to sport Inspiring participation Championing inclusivity Supporting community programmes Highlighting the health and wellbeing benefits of activity Addressing inequalities These are not 'soft' issues, ultimately they shape society and improve lives. This is where athletes are uniquely positioned to influence, without being dragged into politically charged territory. Who should really lead political conversations? If governing bodies, rights holders or organisations wish to take political or ethical positions, they should lead from the front — not rely on athletes to be the public face of those complexities. Athletes can support, amplify and add humanity to important discussions, b ut they should not be the default spokesperson for institutional viewpoints. As the role of athletes continues to evolve, the industry needs a clearer, more responsible framework for how we support them. That means: Giving athletes the freedom to choose if and how they speak Providing education, guidance and safeguarding when they do Reducing pressure to comment on politically sensitive issues Elevating athlete voices in areas where they have genuine authority Ensuring organisations do not outsource political leadership to individuals Ultimately, the goal should be to empower athletes — not overwhelm them. And back them up when they do. Their platforms are at their most powerful not when they’re forced into political commentary, but when they’re sharing stories, insights and perspectives that inspire participation, change communities and open doors for others.
Team of the Week - 27.02.26
Team of the Week - 20.02.26