FIA Faces Backlash Over Drastic Overhaul of Ethics and Audit Committees

The FIA’s recent approval of sweeping changes to its ethics and audit committees has sparked widespread criticism from within the motorsport community. These alterations, approved during the FIA General Assembly in Kigali, Rwanda, significantly curtail the committees’ independence and shift greater power to FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem and the president of the senate, Carmelo Sanz de Barros.

What Are the Changes?

The revised statutes redefine the scope and responsibilities of the FIA’s ethics and audit committees, with the following key adjustments:

1. Ethics Committee:
   • Limited to conducting initial assessments to determine if in-depth investigations are warranted.
   • Reports findings directly to the FIA president and president of the senate, reducing autonomy.
   • Distribution of reports restricted to prevent “continuous leaks of confidential material.”
2. Audit Committee:
   • Stripped of its authority to independently investigate financial matters unless explicitly requested by the president of the senate.
   • Reduced to an advisory role, primarily reviewing accounting methods and internal procedures.
   • No longer required to supervise the closing of FIA accounts or financial matters directly.
3. Compliance Officer:
   • No longer reports to the ethics or audit committees.
   • Stripped of the power to investigate irregularities involving the FIA president or senior officials.

Rationale Behind the Changes

The FIA justified these revisions with the following points:

• Leak Prevention: Citing repeated leaks of confidential material, the FIA argued that limiting the distribution of sensitive reports was necessary to protect individuals involved in investigations.
• Independence Enhancement: Paradoxically, the FIA claimed that reducing the committees’ operational scope would enhance their independence by minimizing administrative interference.
• Streamlining Accountability: By concentrating decision-making within the president and the president of the senate, the FIA suggested it could ensure more focused governance.

Reactions and Criticism

The changes have drawn sharp criticism from senior FIA figures and the broader motorsport community, with many expressing concerns over governance and accountability.

• David Richards, the UK’s representative on the World Motor Sport Council, lambasted the revisions as undermining independent oversight, stating that the audit committee should retain the freedom to investigate any issue within the FIA.
• Oliver Schmerold, Austria’s representative, labeled the changes “saddening” and warned they reduce transparency and accountability.
• Thierry Willermarck, head of Belgium’s Royal Touring Club, criticized the concentration of power, calling it “worrisome” and questioning the willingness of professionals to serve under such restrictive conditions.

Historical Context of the Controversy

This restructuring comes in the wake of scrutiny surrounding Mohammed Ben Sulayem’s presidency. Earlier investigations into his conduct, including whistleblower allegations about interference in sporting decisions and questionable financial practices, were cleared by the ethics and audit committees. Critics argue these changes will now effectively shield the presidency from future independent investigations.

Notably:

• Ben Sulayem faced allegations of attempting to influence a penalty decision for Fernando Alonso and delaying homologation of the Las Vegas Strip Circuit.
• Concerns arose over a $1.5 million fund linked to his private office, which was repurposed for FIA members who vote in presidential elections.

Implications for the FIA

The changes have raised fears about the FIA’s governance model:

• Centralized Power: Critics argue the reforms place disproportionate control in the hands of two individuals, reducing checks and balances.
• Erosion of Transparency: By limiting independent oversight, the FIA risks diminishing trust among stakeholders.
• Impact on Motorsport: With Formula 1 and other championships depending on the FIA’s regulatory integrity, this move could strain relations with teams, sponsors, and fans.

What’s Next?

The FIA insists these changes are necessary for governance efficiency, but the backlash suggests the story is far from over. The growing dissent within the World Motor Sport Council and F1 paddock could lead to further calls for reform. Whether the FIA will reconsider its approach remains to be seen, but the spotlight on its governance practices is unlikely to dim anytime soon.