F1 Fans Question FIA’s Objectivity Amid Controversial Stewarding Decisions Against Max Verstappen
The recent Formula 1 season has seen a surge in controversy regarding FIA’s race officiating, particularly concerning penalties issued to Max Verstappen. During both the United States and Mexican Grands Prix, the Dutch driver’s aggressive style and the resulting FIA decisions have sparked heated debate among fans and pundits, who wonder if bias has seeped into the sport’s regulatory body.
At the United States Grand Prix, Lando Norris received a penalty for a daring attempt to overtake Verstappen—a move that saw both drivers veer off-track. Verstappen, however, avoided penalty, leaving many to question the consistency of FIA decisions. Drivers later met with FIA officials to review rules around aggressive defending, culminating in a promise to address these guidelines at the upcoming Qatar Grand Prix. Yet, at the subsequent Mexican Grand Prix, Verstappen was penalized, an apparent shift in FIA’s approach that has left fans divided on whether fair racing is being preserved or a hidden agenda is influencing decisions.
In Mexico, Verstappen’s aggressive defense against Norris resulted in two separate penalties, which some viewed as justified, while others questioned the integrity of the officiating. Notably, former F1 driver and current FIA steward Johnny Herbert has vocalized strong opinions about Verstappen’s style, terming it “on the edge” and raising concerns about whether it aligns with the principles of fair competition. Herbert, now in a unique position as both steward and commentator, suggested that Verstappen’s tactics may even aim to favor Ferrari, sparking further debate over FIA’s impartiality.
The stewarding inconsistencies came into focus again when, during the Mexican race, Sergio Perez faced no penalties for similar moves. In one incident, Perez forced Liam Lawson wide in a situation nearly identical to the Verstappen-Norris clash. Perez’s actions were deemed a “racing incident,” whereas Verstappen faced a 10-second penalty for similar conduct—a discrepancy that raised questions about FIA’s application of penalties and left fans suspicious of potential favoritism.
Herbert’s dual role as both steward and outspoken F1 commentator has only fueled these suspicions. His prior critiques of Verstappen, coupled with decisions he influenced, have stirred concern that personal views may be affecting stewarding impartiality. During the 2021 season, Herbert even speculated on Verstappen’s potential for tactical collisions to secure a championship win, and his negative commentary has continued, casting a shadow over his role as an objective decision-maker.
This pattern of public criticism and controversial penalties has intensified discussions among fans and experts alike. Critics argue that Herbert’s outspoken role, unusual for an F1 steward, blurs the line between unbiased officiating and opinionated punditry, creating the appearance of bias. The recent Mexican Grand Prix penalties have led some to question the fairness of Herbert’s rulings, with many calling for clearer boundaries that would prohibit stewards from taking on dual media roles.
The divide over FIA’s perceived favoritism has turned the spotlight on the need for transparency and consistency in penalty enforcement. With Herbert slated to officiate at the Brazilian Grand Prix, the F1 community is watching closely. Will his prior remarks about Verstappen’s driving style influence decisions on race day? Or will the FIA take steps to address these concerns and uphold the sport’s integrity?
This ongoing tension has highlighted the broader need for neutrality in F1 stewarding, particularly as the sport’s global fan base demands fair and impartial officiating. As F1 officials prepare to meet in Qatar, fans are hopeful that changes to defensive driving regulations will help resolve the apparent inconsistencies and restore credibility to the sport’s regulatory body.
