Esteban Ocon, Renault, Red Bull Ring, 2020

FIA right to curb F1 drivers’ political statements – Brown

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown has backed the FIA’s decision to bar drivers from expressing political views without its permission.

In brief

Drivers ‘free to do what they want Monday to Friday’ – Brown

As RaceFans revealed last week, the FIA banned drivers from “the general making and display of political, religious and personal statements or comments notably in violation of the general principle of neutrality promoted by the FIA under its Statutes” without prior permission in an update to the International Sporting Code for 2023.

Brown defended the FIA’s move. F1 should not be ‘turned into a political sport’, he told ESPN.

“I think it is within Formula 1 and the FIA’s right to say here’s the code of conduct we expect for you to follow during a grand prix weekend,” he explained. “You’re free to do whatever you want to do Monday through to Friday, so to speak, but obviously it’s at a grand prix weekend the drivers have the most cameras on them.”

Russell talks great expectations at Christmas

George Russell admitted he was ‘intrigued’ to see how Mercedes responded to their slump in form at the beginning of the 2022 F1 season.

He scored the team’s only win of the season in the penultimate race of the year. “It’s difficult when you join a team like Mercedes, you’re expecting victories,” he told the BBC. “I felt ready to fight for race wins and championships this year, but you’ve just got to manage your expectations. You’ve got to change those sights, slightly.

“It’s been really intriguing for me this year seeing how the team deal with this situation, and how much I have learned.”

Ferrari junior makes history with next career step

Maya Weug will become the first woman to be backed by Ferrari in an international single-seater series next year when she steps up to Formula Regional Europe with KIC Motorsport.

The Belgian-Spaniard was the first ever winner of the FIA Women in Motorsport Commissions’s Girls on Track Rising Stars programme, which earned her a place in the Ferrari Driver Academy and a step up from karting into Formula 4.

Across 53 races in two F4 series, Weug has a best finish of sixth since her debut in 2021.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Comment of the day

Red Bull’s world champion Max Verstappen topped RaceFans readers’ polling on who was the top F1 driver of 2022, although some aspects beyond his ability behind the wheel brought him down in some readers’ estimations.

Something I have found out about Verstappen is that he holds grudges. He can’t get past his issues with Hamilton. You can say that this is understandable. But what happened to Perez is yet another instance. Even assuming his claim that Perez crashed in Monaco on purpose, what Verstappen did in Brazil shows that he is still a long way to go to become an adult. He is burning too many bridges and that cannot be good (just like Alonso did).
Ankita

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Lazzar!

On this day in motorsport

  • 60 years ago today Jim Clark put his Lotus on pole position for the South African Grand Prix at the East London circuit

Author information

Ida Wood
Often found in junior single-seater paddocks around Europe doing journalism and television commentary, or dabbling in teaching photography back in the UK. Currently based...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

53 comments on “FIA right to curb F1 drivers’ political statements – Brown”

  1. As a McLaren fan that was a disappointing but predictable response from a team who received $760 million from the Saudi Sovereign wealth fund a few years ago.

    1. That’s a grounded take on Things @g-funk.

  2. Ok, I was under the impression that the FIA was banning drivers in àll media at all times. I don’t have a problem if drivers can speak their minds through their own social media etc. Although I’d be mystified by why someone would follow or listen to a drivers opinion on anything other than driving anyway.

    1. I was under the impression that the FIA was banning drivers in àll media at all times

      I have no idea how anyone leaped to that conclusion – but it sure does explain a lot of the resistance to it.

      Although I’d be mystified by why someone would follow or listen to a drivers opinion on anything other than driving anyway.

      Exactly.
      But many people are extremely impressionable when their favourite celebrity says or does something…

      1. I have no idea how anyone leaped to that conclusion – but it sure does explain a lot of the resistance to it.

        For me, I was under the weather, my comprehension was lowered and I was knee jerk reacting.

        In retrospect, I’m likely more in line with the FIA, I don’t care what these drivers think or feel outside of their performances and it’s why I’m super critical when I learn too much about any of them

        1. While it’s clear the FIA can only mandate thing that happen during events it should probably have been rather clear that is the case, @jasonj (apart from things like doping and testing F1 cars).

          But then those are exactly the moments we put them in the spotlight and ask them why they are racing in an oppressive country like S.A. Bahrain, Quatar, VAE, Azerbaijan, … . Now they cannot even give us a real personal answer anymore.
          It’s still not any better a take since they could also still pull the “bringing the sport into disrepute” thing if they do an interview right ahead of an event or a photoshoot in the run-up to the event.

          1. Oh, and it still means drivers will have to stand there and smile listening to representatives of any such regime giving the impression they are fine with things. Since they won’t be allowed not to.

          2. Oh, and it still means drivers will have to stand there and smile listening to representatives of any such regime giving the impression they are fine with things. Since they won’t be allowed not to.

            Of course they are allowed not to – there’s no slavery here. And they don’t have to smile, either.
            They can find another racing series outside of the FIA structure to compete in, or take up full-time activism if they prefer….

            But then those are exactly the moments we put them in the spotlight and ask them why they are racing in an oppressive country like S.A. Bahrain, Quatar, VAE, Azerbaijan, … . Now they cannot even give us a real personal answer anymore.

            But everyone already knows the answer.
            The drivers can always pull a sickie if it bothers them so much. The teams will always be able to find someone else to drive and absorb the media spotlight – and all the benefits that come with them..

            Still, I’m looking forward to people asking, if only just to see how some drivers handle the double-standards they’ve worked themselves in to.

          3. and it still means drivers will have to stand there and smile listening to representatives of any such regime giving the impression they are fine with things.

            That’s a big part of the point for me. The FIA politicise F1 by racing in places where things are taking place which many disagree with, and give tacit approval for such behaviour by inviting government officials and royal families to take centre stage. If the drivers are not allowed to speak out then, in the one place most will see them, they are forced to appear to give tacit approval themselves by shaking the hands of such people and standing up front while their national anthem is played.

            If the FIA don’t want their sorry to be used for political purposes, they need to keep politics out of it entirely. No government officials, no national anthems, and no deciding where to race on political grounds. Their current approach is “no politics, unless it’s our politics which you must take part in our else!” That’s hypocritical at best.

          4. If the drivers are not allowed to speak out then, in the one place most will see them, they are forced to appear to give tacit approval themselves by shaking the hands of such people and standing up front while their national anthem is played.

            Nope.

            Of course they are allowed not to – there’s no slavery here. And they don’t have to smile, either.
            They can find another racing series outside of the FIA structure to compete in, or take up full-time activism if they prefer….

            No government officials, no national anthems, and no deciding where to race on political grounds.

            Neither the presence of government officials nor the use of national anthems make the event political.
            It’s a different matter altogether, however, when an invited outsider comes to their country and attempts to discredit the host nation in any way, or incites uprising to change their government, policies or social systems.

            And which country on F1’s calendar is or isn’t there for political purposes?
            They are all there because of money. Every single one of them.
            If they are going to make any decisions on the calendar based on political grounds, then as they are taking a neutral stance they can’t reject anyone.
            And before anyone says “What about Russia?” – Russia is off the table for reasons outside of the FIA’s control (the EU’s naughty list).

          5. They can find another racing series outside of the FIA structure to compete in

            So, you’d consider it ok if your employer fired or otherwise punished your because you refused to, say, pose for pictures with an MP you were against? You wouldn’t take legal action for wrongful dismissal when your your boss died you for something which was nothing at all to do with your job?

            If the FIA are going to stop drivers speaking out, they should also allow them to opt out of the political sections of the weekend at the very least (which, no matter what you say, anthems and the appearance of government officials are). Otherwise, they are essentially saying “you must publicly support these political positions, no matter your own views, or else we’ll fire you”. That would be illegal in most reasonable countries.

          6. So, you’d consider it ok if your employer fired or otherwise punished your because you refused to, say, pose for pictures with an MP you were against?

            Disobeying company policy and instructions? Yes, absolutely.

            You wouldn’t take legal action for wrongful dismissal when your your boss died you for something which was nothing at all to do with your job?

            Nope. My choice to work there, my choice to leave. If I don’t agree with the way the company is run, I know what to do.
            Not sure how that relates to this conversation or subject ,though. The FIA is preventing the drivers from doing something in a specific time and place – not ‘forcing’ them to do something they wouldn’t or shouldn’t otherwise be doing.

            If the FIA are going to stop drivers speaking out, they should also allow them to opt out of the political sections of the weekend at the very least

            I’d be fine with that – although it would make absolutely no difference to anything. It’s not at all externally political (which the driver’s statement and protests have been- intentionally).

            Otherwise, they are essentially saying “you must publicly support these political positions, no matter your own views, or else we’ll fire you”.

            Standing there, not doing anything is not showing support for anything. That’s a great example of neutrality. There is no show of support, just as the FIA are asking the drivers to show no sign of disagreement or contempt at that time. Just show respect, even for the things they don’t agree with.
            How can that not be acceptable, given the context and circumstances involved?

          7. Standing there, not doing anything is not showing support for anything. That’s a great example of neutrality.

            No, it isn’t. By standing there and not doing anything while a person you strongly disagree with hands you a trophy and shakes you’re hand is a tacit show of support.

            I guess they could take the trophy but refuse there hand shake, but that would be considered a show of disrespect.

            Three is no way to remain neutral in this situation. The only way for the sport to remain neutral is to bar all political figures and all political actions from the sport. As soon as anything political is allowed, stopping any other is showing support for those allowed and, therefore, opposition to those not allowed.

            To misquote the great philosophers Trey Parker and Matt Stone: Either everything is OK to show support for, or nothing is.

          8. By standing there and not doing anything while a person you strongly disagree with hands you a trophy and shakes you’re hand is a tacit show of support.

            That’s just plain bonkers.
            I can only assume then that you are in complete agreement with, say, Putin’s war mongering. I mean, you haven’t gone over there and tried to stop him, have you? Your inaction must imply that you are in 100% complete support of it. Right?

            I guess they could take the trophy but refuse there hand shake, but that would be considered a show of disrespect.

            And, as a visitor to their country, telling them that their values and policies are terrible, and they are disgraceful people for supporting and enacting them is not disrespectful? Really?

            Three is no way to remain neutral in this situation.

            There absolutely is a way to remain neutral, and that is to do nothing. To not take a side – for or against. Can you find me a genuine definition of neutral that supports your version?
            Or are you trying to tell me that the ‘neutral’ position in a car’s gearbox doesn’t exist either? That it is, in fact, actually either forward or reverse?

            As soon as anything political is allowed, stopping any other is showing support for those allowed and, therefore, opposition to those not allowed.

            Regardless of what we think is ‘political’ to us individually – there’s a very important fact to remember here. The ‘politics’ (and I use that term very loosely) allowed to be expressed in the FIA racing series is that, and only that, which the FIA define. This is a private organisation running private events, with contracted employees and subcontractors – all of whom have signed an agreement to uphold the FIA’s rules and values.
            They are welcome to ask for permission before going ‘politically’ rogue, but it likely won’t be granted…

            Parker and Stone – as in the creators of South Park? Well, if that’s where you get your philosophy and ideology from…

          9. There absolutely is a way to remain neutral, and that is to do nothing. To not take a side – for or against.

            But you are taking a side as soon as you stand in a country, in full global public view, greeting their politicians and “respecting” their national anthem, without giving equal treatment in equal visibility to opposing views. Stopping drivers from speaking out against them is actually removing neutrality, because the only apparent viewpoint given significant assuring is “look at these lovely people, let’s shake their hands”, which is presenting the appearance of approval.

            As for Parker and Stone, I don’t get my philosophy from them, but they made a very valid point which is applicable here. As soon as one thing is banned from your repertoire, you are no longer neutral. In this case, by banning certain political views from being aired they are at the very least giving the appearance that they support any which are allowed to be shown.

            There are two ways for them to remain neutral: ban all political elements, or allow all of them. By allowing only some, as they are doing, they are showing support for those and opposition to any others, which is a long way from neutrality.

          10. This is incredible.
            Apparently, whenever I go to a foreign country, I automatically agree with all their values and everything they do and say, and have unwittingly pledged my complete allegiance to them simply by arriving. If I don’t tell them every second of every day that I disagree with something, then I am explicitly giving my complete support for it.
            Who knew?
            I take it you’ve never shaken hands with someone out of respect, even if you don’t agree with them? You’ve never received anything from anybody without expressing your disapproval for the giver?
            Everyone around you suddenly just found out that you aren’t the person you said you were…
            How awkward your life must be, to never be able to show your neutrality on any subject or in any situation – even temporarily.
            Wasn’t there a Jim Carrey movie like this, where he could not tell a lie? It was based on you!

            As soon as one thing is banned from your repertoire, you are no longer neutral.

            That’s not correct at all. You can still say nothing and act in a neutral manner, even if you can’t say or do what you really want. Neutrality is always an option.
            You just don’t understand neutral, do you?

          11. I very much understand neutral.

            Of course just going to a country doesn’t automatically make you agree with everything. However, being seen in public, on global TV, shaking a politician’s hand does give the appearance of support. Standing publicly, on global TV, for the national anthem of a particularly controversial country without making an equally visible statement to the contrary also gives the appearance of support.

            If the drivers were given the option of doing nothing (eg not attending the anthem ceremony or refusing to accept trophies from political figures), that would be a way for them to show neutrality. The FIA don’t give them that option, so have now made it so that every driver must appear to accept and support the governments of all countries where they race. They cannot refuse to take part in the ceremonies which give the appearance of support, and they cannot express any opinion during the race weekend (the only time such a statement would generally be of equal visibility) which would deny that apparent support.

          12. However, being seen in public, on global TV, shaking a politician’s hand does give the appearance of support.

            Only if you take everything at face value then add your own personal interpretations over the top.

            Discerning the difference between appearance and actual reality is an extremely basic but very important part of interpersonal communication – however many do seem unable to understand the distinction between the two….

            The drivers are all adults, and are capable of making their own choices about what they support and what they oppose. They are entirely free to do so under their own name and in their own time and media space.
            But while they are at work, representing the F1 business and F1’s owners and stakeholders – they have their code of conduct.

            Bottom line – if any driver feels morally compromised, they have the choice to continue playing the F1 business game, or leave it.
            Nobody is forcing them to do anything that they didn’t voluntarily and willingly sign up for.

        2. @jasonj the FIA’s new regulation (12.2.1.n) in the sporting code state the following:
          “The general making and display of political, religious and personal statements or comments notably in violation of the general principle of neutrality promoted by the FIA under its Statutes, unless previously approved in writing by the FIA for International Competitions, or by the relevant ASN for National Competitions within their jurisdiction.”

          The idea that the clause could apply outside of an FIA sanctioned event is quite understandable, as other clauses within Section 12.2 do give the FIA powers to act outside of an FIA sanctioned event. For example, when it comes to statements that the FIA consider to have caused “moral loss” to the FIA, the FIA states that it applies to “any” statements or actions – in that case, the FIA isn’t limiting itself to just FIA sanctioned events and there are no limits on their jurisdiction.

          In this case, whilst the text does refer to requesting permission during a competitive event, it doesn’t actually explicitly state that this clause only applies to FIA competitions – the other people responding here have assumed that is the case, but there technically is nothing in the clause that explicitly limits it to only FIA competitions.

          With regards to your query about whether it applies to any form of media – because the FIA has stated that this applies “generally”, it has also given itself the authority to take action against a driver for making a statement that it disapproves of in any form of media, not just the media channels that the FIA has permitted to be present at the event.

          It is also notable that, whilst it is assumed that this is going to be applied to public statements, the FIA has written that regulation in such a way that it is the general act of communicating any ideas that the FIA does not approve of that is punishable – private communications, therefore, also come under this piece of legislation.

          1. You missed out

            1.2.3 It will never be enforced so as to prevent or impede a Competition or the participation of a Competitor, save where the FIA concludes that this is necessary for the safe, fair or orderly conduct of motor sport

            It doesn’t actually explicitly state that this clause only applies to FIA competition

            Combined with 1.2.3 it does. The rules are only applicable to “International Competitions, or by the relevant ASN for National Competitions within their jurisdiction.”.

            Private communications, therefore, do not come under this piece of legislation unless these communications impact the ‘safe, fair or orderly conduct of motor sport’ which mainly is about comments about the FIA and officials etc…

            The FIA would need to go to extraordinary and unprecedents lengths to justify sanctioning a driver for a personal statement referencing some non-motorsport related political matter.

    2. Because the media can’t resist dumbing down headlines for maximum panic.

      What the FIA has banned is the drivers making political demonstrations at FIA events, without the FIA’s approval.

  3. It’s all nonsense. For two years we had to put up with “We Race As One”, bending the knee because of the corrupt policing system in the states and now the rich idiots who help run F1 are saying its no longer correct?

    They’re a bunch of hypocrites.

    1. And this, i assume, is the exact reason why the FIA want to be over and done with all social/political messaging.

      There was already resistance when it happened before and it will be there again, but now with the added anger from people on all sides of the argument… not good for doing business.

      The WeRaceAsOne initiative was one from FOM, not the FIA. It got ridiculed from both sides for either being useless/“just words” (Hamilton and proponents) or troublesome/out-of-place in a global sporting business (FIA and opponents). When there is no winning, the best option is not to play at all.

  4. I have no idea how anyone leaped to that conclusion – but it sure does explain a lot of the resistance to it.

    For me, I was under the weather, my comprehension was lowered and I was knee jerk reacting.

    In retrospect, I’m likely more in line with the FIA, I don’t care what these drivers think or feel outside of their performances and it’s why I’m super critical when I learn too much about any of them.

    1. Careful now, I’ve been labeled a fascist and a russian bot here for saying the exact same thing.

  5. Maybe I’m too ‘any cars/all cars’ here, but the entire quote:

    “I think it is within Formula 1 and the FIA’s right to say here’s the code of conduct we expect for you to follow during a grand prix weekend,”

    …does make Brown seem less of a jerk than the condensed version in the headline.

    1. as soon as he starts talking about ‘rights’ we know it’s classic Brawn maskirovka. It’s not actually about rights of course – everybody has them including viewers’ right to switch off. It’s about money and power, so that F1 can go to places that pay the most, and not have their ethics mentioned.

  6. Jonathan Parkin
    28th December 2022, 8:36

    Re: COTD Couldn’t agree more. Why start a needless argument over a race that was several months back

    We see this a lot with Ultra Competitive people, there is nothing wrong with competitive instinct but these kind of people can ironically screw themselves over

    Alonso could have won the title in 2007 if he had just kept his head down instead of whining about a status he didn’t need resulting in playing funny games in Hungary

    Michael Schumacher could have won two more titles as well. Villeneuve allegedly wouldn’t have made the corner at Jerez in 1997 and at Monaco in 2006, Michael could have won that race from 3rd – he finished 5th starting from the pit lane for heavens sake – and then the championship momentum would have swung in his direction not Alonso’s

    But it goes even further back. Ayrton Senna’s quest to destroy Alain Prost actually cost him two wins in 1988. At Monaco he got suckered into trading fastest laps with him despite a 50 second lead and in Italy he got suckered into using up too much fuel meaning he had to back off towards the end causing his crash with Jean Louis Schlesser

    As a wise person said once ‘What makes us great is not winning every fight, it’s what we do with ourselves when we lose’

    1. To me, the COTD is a case of someone desperately wanting to criticise a driver who has dominated the season.

      Oh no, the WDC did not slow down for his pay driver teammate. What a slide. Totally immature. And he had the gall to just outright tell the team that that wasn’t going to happen, too!

      Don’t we all despise team orders? How are team orders in support of a hapless #2 _the_ hill some people want to die on?

      1. Not everyone despises team orders – it’s commonly justified as ‘part of F1’s DNA’ as a team sport.
        The thing is though, is that most applications of team orders are explicitly forbidden in the sporting regs in multiple ways, yet nobody is ever penalised for it.

        Regardless, team orders do work both ways – and whether they help the lead driver or the second driver is irrelevant, as they shouldn’t be used at all. They are, by design, manufacturing a specific result by manipulating the competition.

      2. Jonathan Parkin
        28th December 2022, 17:08

        Because being the Number 2 to a driver like Max Verstappen is complete hell

        You’re car isn’t suited for you, it’s suited for your teammate. But you still have to perform or you will lose your drive. However you can’t perform too well, because your life won’t be any easier. Eddie Irvine’s reward for finishing 3rd in his first race for Ferrari was to get no testing for six months. Ruben’s Barrichello dominated the Austrian GP weekend in 2002, winning every session and leading every lap bar one and still was not allowed to win the race. Jarno Trulli won his first GP in Monaco in 2004 and within two or three rounds he was out. Nelson Piquet Jr. was forced to crash his car to get Alonso a win in Singapore. Do I need to carry on

        1. Because being the Number 2 to a driver like Max Verstappen is complete hell

          Oh yes, the hell of driving the quickest car in Formula 1. Maybe Checo should talk to his backers to get him out of that unbearable pickle?

          Eddie Irvine couldn’t win the Championship with his teammate nursing a broken leg for months.

          Rubens Barrichello proved once and for all in 2009 that it was not any team holding him back, it was he himself who couldn’t seal the deal in several seasons of driving the Championship-winning car.

          Jarno Trulli won a single one of his 250+ Grand Prix, never finished higher than 6th in the Championship, and has been memorialized for his ability to hold quicker drivers up in his eponymous train.

          Nelsinho and Flavio and Pat and Fred and what they did in Singapore in 2008 are a permanent cause of shame for Formula 1. (I’m also not sure how they relate to my post, quite frankly)

          If you’re trying to make me feel sorry for these drivers, you’re failing so far and I’m looking forward to more examples of hapless #2s being wronged by lead drivers not following team orders in their support.

    2. and then the championship momentum would have swung in his direction not Alonso’s

      and then the FIA wouldn’t have tweaked the tyre rules later in the season and the Championship would still have come down to the wire.

      The FIA committed an outright assassination in 2005, and 2006 was always going to end the way it did because Formula 1 needed a star with a legitimate WDC to his name.

    3. Nice comment Jonathan, fully agree with the sentiment.

  7. Totally correct. It’s fully within FIA’s scope to come up with the most sterile and meaningless mottos which aren’t even trying to cover up the fact that their chief and only interest is a cashgrab. No space for genuine concerns, guys.

  8. Agree with Zak.

    I watch F1 to escape the world’s issues, not to be highlighted of them again.

    On a weekend a couple of hours of good free time is what F1 is to me.

    1. Do you also agree with Zak that it is his Arabian money men that should have the power to approve or not what drivers and team personal are allowed to communicate?

      1. Using terms ‘Arabian money men’ is venturing into very dodgy territory.

        1. It is a simple statement of fact. McLaren has had several investments from the middle east in recent years, and is majority-owned by literal Arabian money men.

      2. Arabian is an ethnicity, Saudi refers to the specific country. Which do you have an issue with?

        1. I would have used Saudi money men if the only investment in McLaren from the Arabian peninsula came from the Kingdom of Saud. Which it doesn’t.

      3. The drivers chose to race in F1 which is governed by the FIA.

        If they have an issue, they should do what’s best for them.

        There are plenty of talented drivers who don’t get a chance who’d be happy to replace them and drive despite whatever constraints they are put under.

    2. It’s an incredible privilege to be able to take a couple of hours and not think of the problems facing the citizens of totalitarian regimes when they do not have that same ability to be free of the abuses they face for even a few moments. Next time you want to escape, think of the people who can’t escape and see if that justifies the few moments of uncomfortableness you feel when you hear about their plight.

      1. Come on @g-funk – what do you want everyone to do? Suffer just for the sake of it?
        Deliberately make their own lives and those of people around them a misery just because someone, somewhere is less happy for those couple of hours than they are?

        Everything about F1 is a privilege. You can’t honestly tell me that you don’t enjoy that same privilege in the same way the rest of us do.
        Surely a couple of hours per fortnight to mentally recover from the onslaught of social and political warfare we have shoved in our faces the rest of the time is not too much to ask?
        Mental health is a real thing for everyone not in a warzone, poverty, natural disaster or state of illness too.

        1. If you are actually comparing watching a F1 driver speak about something you don’t want to hear about to the actual suffering of the people affected by the abuses the drivers are shining a light on, you have deeper problems than can possibly be solved by spending a couple of hours per fortnight “recovering”.

          I am all for mental health and wellness. I think everyone should see mental health professionals on a recurring basis, just like you would with your physical health. But don’t think for a second that means that is carte blanche to turn a blind eye to the suffering of people throughout the world.

          1. But don’t think for a second that means that is carte blanche to turn a blind eye to the suffering of people throughout the world.

            Who’s turning a blind eye? We are surrounded by it and bombarded with it for the other 334 hours of the fortnight… There’s plenty of time to digest it and take real, meaningful action outside of those 2 hours.

            I’m pretty sure I can look up F1 drivers’ social media accounts to get their personal opinions on things if I really want to.
            Better still, I can watch the news, or do my own research by getting the correct, unedited information direct from the experts and not the dramatic, artistic version from a celebrity who carefully picks and chooses what they do and say to maximise their popularity.

            And I repeat – not wanting to see such messages for a couple of hours does not relate at all to rejecting the issues involved. Not even for a minute.

      2. I’ll be very honest.

        I am privileged fortunately and I watch F1 only for entertainment.

        I am not by any means obliged to care about issues that don’t affect me personally and I am happy being privileged.

        You have an issue with me being privilged? I can’t help you!

        1. I am not by any means obliged to care about issues that don’t affect me personally and I am happy being privileged.

          Great. If someone comes for whatever privileged class you fall into and you would like your plight to be recognized I’ll be sure to remember that if it doesn’t affect me personally, I can happily ignore you.

          1. If someone comes for whatever privileged class you fall into and you would like your plight to be recognized I’ll be sure to remember that if it doesn’t affect me personally, I can happily ignore you.

            Not if someone keeps shoving it in your face while you are trying to do something else.
            Works both ways, doesn’t it?

    3. Hey yeah, I do fully get people who just want escapism. I want escapism too. But when you see your form of escapism used literally as PR for truly disgusting regimes who have committed and continue to commit genuine atrocities, and have F1 tell you just to not think about it and “let’s go racing”… it’s not that easy to turn off.

      Especially when these places wouldn’t have F1 races without boat loads of money exchanging hands and most viewers actively dislike the tracks that they’ve given us in places where most citizens are poor and couldn’t care less about the sport visiting.. yeah it’s not easy to just “escape” with all that clearly going on.

      1. +1 @davidhunter13

        Can we mention the Piranha Club? F1’s paddock politics have little to do with racing and so much more about egos and money. Big egos and big money. And where there’s big money, there’s big politics.

        Choosing F1 for escapism is like choosing Twitter for respectful public discussion. ;-)

        FIA is just protecting their big monied, big ego’d patrons from their political choices. Hilarious sporting approach if it wasn’t so transparently hypocritical and pathetic.

      2. I want escapism too. But when you see your form of escapism used literally as PR for truly disgusting regimes… it’s not that easy to turn off.

        Translation – “I want escapism, but not as much as I don’t. I’d much rather focus on things that aren’t escapism.”

Comments are closed.