FIA and the Fairness Equation: When Chants from Argentina Echo at Zandvoort

They think we are against the British. FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem's remark at a conference in Buenos Aires is not merely a defensive statement; it is an admission that the governing body now stands in the middle of a battle no regulation anticipated: the battle for trust. The story begins on the opening lap at Zandvoort, where Max Verstappen suffered a heavy crash. The damaged car sat on the track, yellow flags waved across the sector. Alpine's Franco Colapinto and Racing Bulls' Arvid Lindblad were handed drive-through penalties for overtaking under yellow-flag conditions. Both drivers publicly disputed the decision, arguing it was too harsh or lacked foundation. But the story did not stop at two penalties. The Argentine fan community, which has placed huge expectations on Colapinto, immediately erupted. A sponsor executive for Colapinto even questioned the FIA's integrity on social media. Then Ben Sulayem revealed he had received similar complaints from the British side — that the FIA is against British drivers. That is why he said: 'They think we are against the British.' From the perspective of someone who has followed F1 for over a decade, I recognize this is not an isolated incident. It is a recurring pattern. Every time a controversial decision is made, the losing side seeks a systemic reason to explain their frustration. Argentines see bias against their driver; Britons see the same. And Ben Sulayem, a former driver himself, understands that simple denial will not solve anything. This story takes me back to the Kanté lesson of 2026. Back then, I wrote that Kanté had made only 3 tackles in the World Cup final — the actual number was 4. That error led me to build a five-step verification process, and since then I have never published data without cross-checking. But more importantly, I learned that when a system is suspected, providing correct numbers alone is not enough. You must explain why those numbers are trustworthy. The FIA is facing exactly that problem. No one can deny that Colapinto and Lindblad overtook under yellow flags — telemetry data and cameras confirm this. But the question millions of fans ask is not 'did they violate', but 'why was the penalty so harsh' and 'would a British driver in the same situation have been treated the same way'. This is the blind spot of modern sport: we have technology to determine facts, but not to determine fairness. Fairness is a perceptual concept, shaped by culture, history, and the unconscious biases of the observer themselves. Ben Sulayem, with his statement in Buenos Aires, has chosen a different approach. Instead of merely defending the stewards' decisions, he acknowledged that there is a perception problem. He promised to call Colapinto to explain directly. He also proposed a steward rotation and training programme, with candidates nominated by member clubs (ASNs). This move reflects a sophisticated understanding of governance. When a system loses trust, you cannot just fix the outcome; you must fix the process. Involving ASNs in the steward nomination process creates a channel of representation for different regions. A steward from South America may not fully understand European racing culture, but conversely, a European steward may not be sensitive to the expectations of Argentine fans. Diversity among stewards may not eliminate controversy, but it reduces the likelihood of controversy being attributed to systematic bias. However, I see a deeper issue here. Rotating stewards could create a new problem: inconsistency. In a sport where every thousandth of a second matters, different stewards making different decisions for the same situation will create chaos. Look at football: VAR was introduced to reduce controversy, but in reality it merely moved the controversy from the pitch to the control room. F1 needs to learn from that. Another approach, which I believe is more effective, is to establish a public set of criteria for yellow-flag decisions. Instead of letting stewards judge based on personal experience, the FIA could build a data-driven decision framework: car speed at the moment of overtaking, safe distance from the incident car, driver reaction time. If these criteria were published before the season, fans would know exactly what constitutes a violation and what does not. This sounds technical, but it is actually a communication issue. When you have clear rules, you can explain your decisions logically. When you do not, you must rely on the credibility of the decision-maker — and that credibility is eroding. I have watched many seasons, and I have noticed that steward controversies are rarely about the decision itself. They are about respect. Fans want to feel that their team or driver is treated fairly. When they feel unfairly treated, they will seek a reason — any reason — to explain that feeling. And 'against Argentines' or 'against Britons' are the easiest reasons to invoke. Ben Sulayem understands this. By acknowledging that he has heard complaints from both sides, he is trying to paint a balanced picture: the FIA is not against any nation, because if they are against everyone, they are against no one. That is a logical argument, but is it persuasive enough? The answer depends on whether the FIA turns words into action. A phone call to Colapinto is a nice gesture, but it only matters if accompanied by measurable changes in how the FIA operates. The steward training and rotation programme needs a clear roadmap, with timelines and evaluation criteria. Otherwise, it will be just another statement in a long series of statements. From a data perspective, I want to look at the numbers. In the last 5 seasons, how many controversial decisions have been made? How many of those involved drivers from countries with large fan bases? How many were appealed and upheld? These numbers would tell us whether there is systematic bias or just random coincidence. But I suspect the FIA will not publish these figures, because they may not support the narrative they want to tell. That is one of the fundamental weaknesses of sports governance: the lack of transparency. Decisions are made behind closed doors, with reasons not fully disclosed. Fans see only the outcome, not the process. And when you do not see the process, you imagine the worst. I recall an interview with a former F1 steward who told me: 'We never intentionally favour anyone. But we are human, and humans have unconscious biases they do not recognize.' That sentence haunted me. Because if stewards do not recognize their biases, how can they correct them? And how can we trust them? That is why I think involving ASNs in the steward nomination process is a step in the right direction, but not enough. The FIA needs to build a system where decisions are publicly explained, with supporting data. They need to create a feedback channel for fans, where questions are answered honestly, even when the answer is 'we do not know'. In a world where everything can be verified, ambiguity becomes a luxury that large organizations can no longer afford. The FIA may not like that, but they need to accept it. The Colapinto–Lindblad incident may be forgotten after one or two races. But the question of fairness will not disappear. It will resurface every time a controversial decision is made, and each time it resurfaces, it will erode a little more of the fans' trust in this sport. I learned from the Kanté mistake that honesty about one's own errors is the only way to build trust. The FIA may not have erred in penalising Colapinto and Lindblad — the data shows they overtook under yellow flags. But the FIA erred in how it communicated that decision. They allowed silence and lack of explanation to create a vacuum that bias accusations filled. That does not mean the FIA needs to justify every decision. It means the FIA needs to explain its process clearly and consistently. When you do that, you not only protect your decision; you protect the integrity of the entire system. And that is what Ben Sulayem needs to understand. He can call Colapinto, he can call Lindblad, he can call all the drivers. But those calls will only matter if accompanied by a measurable commitment to transparency. Otherwise, they are just diplomatic gestures in a war where the real weapon is information. The tactical machine does not run on emotion; it runs on information. And in this case, the FIA's governance machine is running low on fuel. They need to add more data, more transparency, and more willingness to listen. If they do that, they can turn a crisis of trust into an opportunity to strengthen the system. If not, they will continue to face bias accusations, from Argentina, from Britain, and from any other country whose driver is penalised. I do not have the answer to whether the FIA is truly biased. But I know that in a sport where fairness is the foundation of existence, the perception of fairness is as important as fairness itself. And that perception is hurting. The lesson from Zandvoort is not about yellow flags. It is about how an organization can maintain trust in a world where scepticism is the default. The FIA stands at a crossroads: they can continue to defend their decisions with silence, or they can open the doors and show the world how they operate. I hope they choose the second path, because the first has been proven unsustainable. When I look back at my writing career, I realize that the most well-received articles were not those with the most data, but those that explained the meaning of that data. The FIA has plenty of data about its decisions, but it is failing to explain their meaning. That is a communication failure, and it is becoming a governance failure. Football has gone through similar crises, and it has learned that transparency is the only medicine. F1 needs to learn that lesson before it pays a heavier price. The final question I want to raise is: are we demanding too much from stewards? They are only human, they can make mistakes, and they have to make split-second decisions under enormous pressure. But I think we are not demanding perfection. We are only demanding that they explain their reasoning. And that is not too much to ask. I will be watching closely for what happens next. Will the steward training and rotation programme actually be implemented? Will the FIA publish decision criteria for yellow-flag situations? Will Ben Sulayem actually call Colapinto and say something meaningful? These questions will determine whether this crisis is a passing incident or a turning point in the history of F1 governance. And as I write these lines, I remember a saying from an old friend in the racing world: 'In F1, nothing is fair except the stopwatch.' Maybe he is right. But the stopwatch cannot measure the fairness of a decision. And that is why we need transparent systems to do that. The FIA has the opportunity to build such a system. The question is whether they will seize it. And the answer, as always, lies in the data — but not data about speed or time, but data about how they treat those who ask questions. I will wait and see.