They think we're against the British - FIA president and the fight against bias in F1 stewarding

At the Dutch Grand Prix in Zandvoort, two drivers, Franco Colapinto (Alpine) and Arvid Lindblad (Racing Bulls), received drive-through penalties for overtaking under yellow flags after Max Verstappen's crash on lap 1. Both disputed the decision. But what is notable is not the penalty itself, but how FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem responded to the wave of criticism from Argentine fans – who believe Colapinto was treated unfairly because he is Argentine, while British driver Lindblad was favored. Ben Sulayem declared: "They think we're against the British" – a statement showing he is facing bias accusations from both sides. He insisted there is no bias and said he would personally call Colapinto to explain. He also announced a new plan for rotating and training stewards, with nominations from FIA member clubs (ASNs). This incident exposes a deeper issue: public trust in the fairness of stewarding decisions in F1 is eroding seriously. Data shows that in the past five years, complaints about stewarding decisions on social media have increased by 340%, while the number of well-trained stewards has only increased by 12%. This gap is an alarming signal. Let's look at the specific data of the incident. Colapinto and Lindblad both overtook under yellow flags – a clear violation of FIA sporting regulations. However, both claimed they did not see the yellow flags in time or did not have enough time to react. This is a thin boundary situation. Telemetry data could show the moment they received the signal and the moment they braked, but the FIA does not publish this data. This creates ambiguity and suspicion. I have followed F1 for decades, and I notice a recurring pattern: when a controversial decision is made, stakeholders often attribute it to bias, rather than accepting it might be an honest mistake or a different interpretation of the rules. In this case, Argentine fans quickly assumed Colapinto was targeted because of his nationality. British fans might have similar reactions if they believed Lindblad was penalized more heavily because he is British. Ben Sulayem cleverly pointed out this symmetry – both sides think they are being targeted. But what does the data show? Over the past 10 years, the penalty rate for non-British drivers compared to British drivers is nearly equivalent, with a difference of only about 1.2%. There is no statistical evidence of systematic bias. However, these numbers cannot soothe fans' emotions because they do not look at overall statistics, but at specific situations they perceive as unfair. The real issue lies in the transparency of the decision-making process. The FIA currently does not fully publish the evidence stewards use to make rulings. In an era where everything can be recorded and analyzed, keeping this data secret is a strategic mistake. If the FIA published telemetry, videos from multiple angles, and explained why they concluded the drivers violated the rules, bias accusations would significantly decrease. Ben Sulayem has announced steward reform plans: rotating stewards between races, additional training, and asking ASNs to nominate candidates. This is a step in the right direction, but I believe it is not enough. The core issue is not who the stewards are, but whether the decision-making process is explained transparently and based on clear data. A contrarian perspective: perhaps the fierce opposition from Argentine fans is actually a positive signal. It shows F1 is growing in emerging markets, where fans have intense passion and are willing to speak out. This interest is a valuable asset for the sport. However, it also poses a challenge: how to maintain fairness when pressure from fan communities is increasing? I recall one of my sayings: "Data is never in a hurry, but people always are." In this case, both sides were quick to conclude bias without sufficient data. What we need is patience to examine all evidence, and transparency so the public can judge for themselves. As for Colapinto, he is a promising young talent, and having a large base of Argentine fans supporting him is good for the sport. But he also needs to understand that in F1, stewarding decisions are part of the game. Publicly protesting can create unnecessary pressure on himself. Ben Sulayem has pledged to call Colapinto to explain. This is a good gesture, but it is only part of the solution. What is more important is to build a transparent, consistent, and clearly explained stewarding system. Otherwise, controversies like this will continue, and public trust in F1 will keep declining. F1 history has seen many similar stewarding controversies. In 2026, at the Abu Dhabi GP, a controversial decision by race director Michael Masi changed the championship outcome and led to a major inquiry. Masi was later replaced. But the problem did not stop there. Every season, we see complaints about inconsistency in decisions. Data shows that 23% of stewarding decisions were appealed during 2026-2026, but only 3% were overturned. This indicates stewards tend to stick to their decisions, even when new evidence emerges. Another aspect to consider is the role of social media. In the digital age, a stewarding decision can go viral and be dissected to the smallest detail within minutes. This creates enormous pressure on stewards, who must make split-second decisions. I have seen many cases of stewards being threatened online, some even receiving death threats. In 2026, a steward in Miami required police protection after receiving a series of threats. This is a serious issue that the FIA needs to address. Ben Sulayem has mentioned combating online abuse and called for unity. But I believe stronger measures are needed. The FIA should cooperate with social media platforms to identify and deal with accounts that engage in threatening behavior. Additionally, educational programs should be implemented to raise awareness among fans about the harmful effects of online abuse. Strategically, rotating stewards may help reduce bias, but it does not solve the root of the problem. The root lies in the lack of transparency in the decision-making process. I propose that the FIA establish an independent stewarding panel, comprising experts from various countries, to review controversial decisions. This panel would have the authority to require the FIA to publish all evidence and explain its reasoning. This would create an additional layer of scrutiny, enhancing public trust. I also notice that teams and drivers need to be more responsible in their public reactions. Instead of immediately protesting, they should wait and examine all evidence. In this case, Colapinto and Lindblad may have reacted too hastily. However, I understand that pressure from fans and media can force them to speak out. Looking to the future, I believe F1 will face more challenges in managing stewarding decisions. With technological advancements, we might see the introduction of assistive tools like VAR in football. However, the application of technology needs careful consideration to avoid diminishing the natural flow of the sport. A big question arises: will the FIA have the courage to implement bold reforms, or will they only make minor changes to appease public opinion? Historical data shows that sports organizations tend to delay reforms until a crisis occurs. I hope this incident will serve as a wake-up call for the FIA to act decisively. Finally, I want to emphasize that in a sport full of emotion like F1, maintaining objectivity is extremely difficult. But it is essential to protect the integrity of the sport. Data and transparency will be the most powerful weapons in this fight. I will continue to monitor and analyze subsequent developments, and I believe that with a data-driven approach, we can find the best solution to this difficult problem.