Up Next
David Richards’ criticisms of Mohammed Ben Sulayem’s FIA presidency have blown open clear political divides within the governing body.
While there have been indications of internal disagreements about the way things are being run, senior figures within the organisation have generally kept their heads below the parapet.
Sure, stories had leaked out about various conflicts and discontent, including most recently World Motor Sport Council members being barred from a meeting for not having signed a new non-disclosure agreement, but no one at such a high level had openly spoken out like this before.
That has changed now with the Motorsport UK chair's lengthy letter to club members that appeared on Wednesday night.
Richards said his decision to speak out was triggered by what he said was the “final straw” of a “gagging order” on WMSC members.
But the thoughts expressed in the letter have a wider significance than just being about a single individual venting unhappiness about the way things are being run.
Coming in a presidential election year, Richards choosing to be so expansive and open about the issues at play – and areas he feels that Ben Sulayem has not lived up to election promises – could prove to be what fires a starting gun on a fight that will ultimately decide who runs the FIA beyond this year, and highlights potentially big implications for the 2025 Formula 1 season.
Election year significance
One thing this is certainly not is Richards setting out his stall to run for FIA president himself. At 72, a change of the FIA statutes last year, which reduced the age limits for the president from 75 to 70, formally rules him out.
While there are no suggestions that this is even part of a bid involving another candidate, it could become a catalyst for others, unhappy about the way things are being run, to come forward because they know they are not alone.
It is a tactic well used in politics where either there is a rallying call against a leader, or a stalking horse candidate, that tests the waters when it comes to pushing through a regime change against a leader that appears to be unchallengeable.
The tenure of Margaret Thatcher, who was the longest serving British Prime Minister in modern history, was ended in 1990 by a famous speech from then deputy PM Geoffrey Howe criticising her leadership.
In a remarkable outpouring of thoughts in a resignation speech, which ultimately set in motion the leadership contest that brought Thatcher down, Howe did not hold back as he galvanised opposition to her.
His most famous cutting remark about Thatcher’s leadership undermining those she worked with, said: “It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease only for them to find, the moment the first balls are bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game, by the team captain.”
Richards has equally laid bare areas where he feels things are not right, most likely in the hope that this resonates with those who are not happy but have kept their stall.
And this especially revolves around what he says is a “failure” of Ben Sulayem to live up to his election promises of being a hands-off president who promised “full transparency of actions and the highest standards of sporting governance.”
In the letter, Richards wrote: “I'm afraid that over the last three years there has been a distinct failure to meet these promises.
“In fact, the situation has progressively worsened with media reports confirming that numerous senior members of the FIA and volunteer officials have either been fired or have resigned under an opaque cloud.
“Furthermore, the scope of the Audit and Ethics Committees has been severely limited and now lacks autonomy from the authority of the president, while our UK representative, who challenged certain matters, was summarily removed along with the chair of the Audit Committee.
“Various techniques have also been deployed with the effect of limiting the proper function of the World Motor Sport Council, primarily the use of e-voting which removes the opportunity for much needed discussion and debate on key subjects.
“This has become increasingly worrying and the final straw for me, three weeks ago, was being asked to sign a new confidentiality agreement that I regarded as a 'gagging order’.”
The kingmaker element
There is a significance too in it being Richards that has spoken out, in that he and Motorsport UK were widely viewed as the kingmakers in the last FIA presidential election back in 2021.
For a while during the campaign, there appeared to be very little to choose between Ben Sulayem and rival candidate Graham Stoker, as they had similar levels of support.
However, a public endorsement for Ben Sulayem from Motorsport UK and the RAC, one of the founding members of the FIA, in December 2021 was viewed as critical in shifting the thoughts of many clubs.
With Motorsport UK’s backing, a host of other clubs followed suit and helped Ben Sulayem triumph.
So is Richards’ letter the first hint that there will be a presidential bid from a rival candidate? It’s probably a bit too early to say that for definite.
Right now there is no clear indication that any candidate is willing to come forward to stand against Ben Sulayem, but Richards’ stance may deliver some confidence that anyone putting their hand up will not be alone and risk being isolated.
The legality question
While any potential election battle will only play out over the next few months, there is another interesting strand to Richards’ letter: the threat of legal action.
Amid the unease over the non-disclosure agreement, and WMSC members being barred from the recent meeting, Richards has openly talked about challenging what has happened.
In his letter, he wrote: “These actions by the FIA are in breach of their own Statutes. As a result, we have informed the FIA that unless they address the issues we've raised, we will be engaging in further legal action.
“In a year when the President will either be re-elected or a new one appointed, it is more important than ever to remind the FIA of their responsibilities and continue to hold them to account on behalf of the sport and their members worldwide, and that's what I intend to do.”
It is highly unlikely he would have been willing to commit such thoughts about a breach of Statutes without having had some robust legal advice suggesting that to be the case.
Indeed, he made reference to the level of guidance he had got: “Our Motorsport UK lawyers, along with our French Legal Counsel, have challenged the FIA on their actions by setting out a clear set of questions that the FIA leadership needs to answer.”
And if there is a legal aspect to answer over whether or not the Statutes have been broken by barring members from the WMSC meeting, then it could open debate about whether recent decisions made by that body are legally robust.
The recent WMSC meeting ratified a number of key changes – including making Formula 1’s Monaco Grand Prix a mandatory two-stopper.
But there are other immediate F1 rule changes – such as those involving aborted starts, extra formation laps and cars having to be retired immediately if they pick up obvious damage – that could be in play when the season starts in Melbourne.
Were those rules to become central to a dispute about whether they are actually valid, then constitutional matters could become a huge talking point.
When this issue of WMSC decisions potentially not being valid first cropped up, the FIA insisted that was not the case and the meeting was done “in accordance with the WMSC governance.”
However, this is something that is ultimately down to lawyers and courts to decide if there is disagreement over it.
Article 27 of the FIA Statues lays out how any such dispute must play out.
It states: “The International Court of Appeal shall be entrusted with judging definitively any dispute or conflict resulting from the application of the present Statutes, of the Statutes of the body governed by Swiss law, of the International Sporting Code, and more generally of the rules and regulations decreed by the FIA, with settling any dispute relating to FIA activities, and with hearing any litigation which may be submitted to it by the President of the FIA.”
For now, the FIA appears unmoved by this latest development – and it stands by comments it made a few weeks that the NDA matter had support within.
“As is routine in all organisations, the FIA implements procedures including non-disclosure agreements to ensure confidential relationships between all parties, to safeguard personal information, and to protect our regulatory interests," said a spokesperson.
"Unauthorised disclosure of confidential information undermines our ability to fully fulfil our mission and adversely impacts our capabilities to generate revenues to support our member clubs in our shared objective of growing motorsport participation, increasing accessibility, and cultivating innovation.
"The steps we have taken to preserve confidentiality have been overwhelmingly supported by a super majority of WMSC members."
Super majority maybe, but it is clear that there is not unanimous support behind all that is happening right now.
Key going forward will be whether the voices of dissent now become much louder.
