Explained: The real reasons behind the FIA’s new swearing guidelines

The FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem with Red Bull's Max Verstappen at the 2024 United States Grand Prix.
The FIA has confirmed changes to the International Sporting Code which could result in draconian penalties – including full suspension and points deductions.
Under the new guidelines published by the FIA this week, all competitors in Formula 1 could be subject to far more serious punishments.
Why have changes been made to the International Sporting Code?
Formula 1 is governed by specific rulebooks – namely, the Technical, Sporting, Financial and, as of F1 2025, Operational Regulations.
But, with the FIA being the governing body for a huge amount of international motorsport, an all-encompassing rulebook applies to all its categories. This is known as the International Sporting Code (the ISC) and, ahead of the F1 2025 season, changes have been made to introduce an ‘Appendix B’.
This pertains to offering the stewards at a Grand Prix a set of guidelines to use when deciding on penalties pertaining to areas related to the conduct of competitors, in order to further enhance transparency and consistency in decision-making.
A sliding scale of suggested punishments has been outlined in the document, which can be viewed directly on the FIA website, and came about following an e-Vote on the topic, rather than via a full-scale F1 Commission meeting, the most recent of which was held in Rwanda in December.
Article 12.2.2.1.L of the ISC covers the area of ‘Any Misconduct’, which were the grounds under which Max Verstappen and Charles Leclerc were investigated for using the word “f**k” in an FIA press conference last season. Verstappen was hit with a community service punishment, which he served in Rwanda ahead of the FIA’s Prize-Giving Gala.
Leclerc, who showed immediate remorse after he used the same word in the FIA Press Conference after the Mexican Grand Prix, was given a €10,000 fine – half of which was suspended.
With the conversation regarding the area of ‘misconduct’ in the spotlight, the Grand Prix Driver’s Association – made up of the current 20 F1 drivers – released an open letter in response to their perception of the treatment from the FIA and its president Mohammed Ben Sulayem.
On behalf of “the directors and chairman of the GPDA on behalf of the grand prix drivers”, the letter said: “As is the case with every sport, competitors must abide by the referee’s decision, whether they agree with it or not. That is how sport works. The drivers (our members), are no different, and fully understand that.
“With regards to swearing, there is a difference between swearing intended to insult others and more casual swearing, such as you might use to describe bad weather, or indeed an inanimate object such as an F1 car, or a driving situation.
“We urge the FIA president to consider his own tone and language when talking to our member drivers, or indeed about them, whether in a public forum or otherwise.
“Further, our members are adults. They do not need to be given instructions by the media about matters as trivial as the wearing of jewellery or underpants.”
The letter added: “The GPDA has, on countless occasions, expressed its view that driver monetary fines are not appropriate for our sport.
“For the past three years, we have called upon the FIA president to share the details and strategy regarding how the FIA’s financial fines are allocated and where the funds are spent.
“We have also relayed our concerns about the negative image financial fines bring to the sport. We once again request the FIA president provide financial transparency and direct, open dialogue with us.
“All stakeholders (FIA, F1, the teams and the GPDA) should jointly determine how and whether the money is spent for the benefit of the sport.”
Just a few short weeks after this letter, the FIA has made its stance clear by outlining the potential punishments that await drivers and competitors should they choose not to toe the line.
More on the FIA and F1’s governance
? Explained: What is ‘parc fermé’ and how does the FIA enforce it?
? FIA explained: What does it stand for and how does it govern F1?
What are the changes made to the International Sporting Code?
To use Verstappen and Leclerc’s transgressions as an example, their punishments for a first offence could now be a flat €40,000 fine – the punishments for F1, specifically, see the base rates below multiplied by four.
Should a second offence be committed under the same Article, the punishment could be €80,000 with a suspended one-month suspension.
A third offence could potentially net the driver/competitor a €120,000 fine, a one-month suspension, and a deduction of championship points. The deduction amount is not detailed but, regardless, this punishment is as harsh as any handed out in F1, even compared to sporting and technical matters.
There’s no element of surprise to the fact guidelines have been issued – the conversations between the FIA, the stewards, and the GPDA stems back to meetings held at the Qatar Grand Prix in which the drivers outlined their desire for complete transparency on what is and isn’t allowed.
However, sources have indicated that the contents of the guidelines were a surprise and may come as a shock to the GPDA.
But it’s worth noting that these guidelines are merely that – the stewards aren’t obliged to hand out these punishments, but the options are open to them.
For instance, it’s now entirely theoretically possible that a driver using a curse word or other inappropriate language could land them with a huge fine and a potentially championship-deciding suspension – but the context of this will matter. A driver swearing on team radio, as an example, won’t get them in trouble. But saying it unnecessarily in the more considered environment of an FIA press conference might.
Context will also matter for the other Articles listed. As an example, the area of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is something that many US corporations are turning their backs on in the wake of the inauguration of Donald Trump. A driver showing support for DEI (an area the FIA itself views as extremely important) wouldn’t constitute a political statement. But, if expressed in a way that could be seen as a condemnation of political policy, this could be seen as falling foul of Article 12.2.1.o. and open the door for the stewards to impose a punishment, if applicable.
The changes bring the FIA’s Code in line with similar policies from other major international sports, such as the expectations of the International Olympic Committee or the NFL’s fines schedule. For instance, the NFL recently fined San Francisco 49ers’ Nick Bosa for displaying a ‘Make America Great Again’ hat during an interview but has no issue with players doing the infamous ‘Trump Dance’ as an on-pitch celebration.
Appendix B thus provides clear guidance to the stewards and all competitors on what may happen for violations of specific ISC articles. The framework means penalties can be applied uniformly, with the stewards having the authority to impose the penalties or take into account any mitigating and/or aggravating factors.
Multiple sources across the grid have indicated there is little controversy or cause for alarm by the apparently highly subjective wording of the guidelines, and it remains to be seen whether any of the guidelines will eventually be added formally into the regulations.
With the FIA having sought to engage the GPDA in talks to outline how best to proceed, the apparent surprise over the exact contents of the Appendix means there might yet be some complaints about it once the F1 season rolls around in just over a months’ time.
The subjective nature of the guidelines leaves the door open for potential stumbling points – for instance, what may be a cultural norm and acceptable for one steward may be vastly different for another. But what the guidelines are primarily seeking to help stamp out is the more egregious offences, ie. abuse of officials or personnel, particularly at the lower levels of motorsport.
Where eyebrows might be raised is related to Article 12.2.2.1.f, which covers the area of causing “moral injury” to the FIA or its personnel. This appears to be the most subjective of all – does criticising an FIA policy or a decision made by a steward count as a “moral injury”? More to the point, does criticising the President?
The precedent for this Article offers one relatively recent example, with Red Bull boss Christian Horner summoned before the stewards at the 2021 Qatar Grand Prix over comments he made in an interview with Sky F1.
A penalty given to Verstappen for failing to slow sufficiently under yellow flags was triggered by the actions of a “rogue marshal” for waving the flag, according to Horner, who also said there “needs to be some grown decisions made by grown-ups”, seemingly in reference to then-race director Michael Masi.
Horner was investigated under this Article of the ISC and was given a warning as well as community service – the new Appendix now gives the more likely punishment of a flat €40,000 fine for a first offence.
With clarity on the matter now issued, rather than it being seen as the FIA doubling down as a response to the GPDA’s letter, it places the onus back on the competitors as to how they wish to conduct themselves.
Given the steadfast response from Ben Sulayem in response to the criticisms of the GPDA, in which he said that how he runs F1 is “none of their business”, it’s perhaps unsurprising that, while a degree of democracy has been applied to the process, the governing body has chosen to forge its own path for the actual wording of the guidelines.
Whether or not some of the behaviour expected of the drivers and competitors is the right direction for the sport to be going in is something every reader is likely to feel differently about but there can be little argument that the FIA has responded to the calls for greater transparency.
Read Next: Haas set ‘totally clear’ rules of engagement between Ocon and Bearman