Motorsport UK and FIA: A Growing Rift Over Governance

Why Motorsport UK Is Challenging FIA Governance

Written by Business of Motorsport Programme Leader, Genevieve Gordon-Thomson

There is currently an ongoing rift between Motorsport UK and the FIA, and while this has been going on for months, with the Chair of Motorsport UK, David Richards, being repeatedly vocal about his dislike of FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem, this has recently culminated in the threat of legal action over governance disputes.

At the centre of Richards’ dispute with the FIA is his growing concern over transparency, accountability and leadership within the organisation and the damage this will have on the governance standards and integrity of international motorsport.

David Richards CBE is Chairman of Motorsport UK and Chair of Prodrive. He has decades of experience within the motorsport industry, both as a driver and from the management side. Richards won the 1981 World Rally Championships for Ford and is the former Chair of Aston Martin and former team principal of BAR and Bennetton F1 Teams.

Richards is Chair of the FIA Foundation and is the UK representative at the FIA World Motorsport Council (WMSC), a role which started this conflict. After 40 years in the business managing drivers, managers and engineers, collecting a multitude of accolades, Richards is no stranger to conflicts within the world of motorsport.

However, this time Richards turned to the highest level of management within international motorsport: the president of the FIA, Mohammed Ben Sulayem. Ben Sulayem has been FIA president since 2021 and is the first non-European to hold the title. A former rally driver from the UAE, Ben Sulayem, oversaw the restructuring of race control to modernise operations. Ben Sulayem’s first term as President comes to an end in December, but he will run for a second term against American Tim Mayer, who is aiming to end what he has described as a ‘reign of terror’ within motorsport.

While debates about sporting governance and integrity are nothing new to the world of motorsport, this threat of legal action raises new questions about how global federations maintain their ethical and governance standards and who will hold them accountable if they fail in this endeavour.

Background Context

The FIA serves as the international governing federation for global motorsport, with responsibilities including setting and enforcing the rules, setting safety standards and event approvals. National governing bodies, such as Motorsport UK, represent their countries within the FIA structure and promote motorsport at all levels and disciplines across their nation. The National Governing Bodies also contribute to international decision-making through committees and councils such as the WMSC.

Since Ben Sulayem’s tenure as FIA President, there have been several controversies surrounding governance and the centralisation of power, which has gained significant criticism from other figures in motorsport.

This has included a fractured relationship with Formula 1 and Liberty Media, stemming from Ben Sulayem suggesting that the sale of F1 was ‘inflated’, breaking from the role of the FIA as a regulatory body, which does not interfere with commercial aspects. This was met with heavy criticism by Toto Wolff, amongst others, stating that the FIA should not be commenting on the commercial valuation of a sport and was not part of their role as a governing body.

Several high-profile figures from within the FIA resigned over questions of governance integrity, including F1 race director Neils Wittich and CEO Natalie Robyn, who particularly raised concerns over the FIA’s professional practices.

The Triggering Incident

David Richards’ seat on the WMSC gave him a voice in shaping both national and international motorsport governance standards. However, this was abruptly curtailed when he was excluded by the FIA from a recent meeting due to his refusal to sign an NDA. The NDA was a new requirement to attend WMSC meetings and was included without consultation. Richards was one of a few people who refused to sign the NDA he stated that with the agreement:

“Everything was now considered confidential, without any qualification, preventing me from necessarily sharing what I considered to be relevant information
The FIA, at its own discretion, could decide if anyone breached the terms of the new confidentiality agreement with no process or frame of reference
There was an immediate fine of €50,000 for any breach and a threat of undisclosed damages”

This refusal to sign the NDA led to Richards being barred from a 2025 WMSC meeting, a retaliatory move which has led Richards to threaten legal action. While the FIA claimed it was enforcing a neutral policy, others have argued that it was selectively used to marginalise someone who was a vocal critic of the FIA’s President.

Transparency is an essential characteristic of good sports governance, and it is a continued global issue when it comes to sports federations, whether it be financial transparency, procedural transparency or transparency in decision-making. It ensures integrity in sporting regulations and strengthens athlete and public confidence in the organisations, ensuring that fair competition is the heart of the sporting industry.

This has recently been an issue for FIFA in recent corruption cases, financial issues and a lack of accountability. Similarly, this was seen in the IOC’s 2016 statement calling for transparency in anti-doping testing and procedures.

The pressures that WADA faced from athletes the IOC, and the public have led to reform, with new rules set to be published in 2026. These incidents all demonstrate just how vital accountability and transparency is in fair governance, conflicting with the imposition of an NDA.

Public Accusations and Letter

Shortly after the meeting, Richards published a strongly worded open letter accusing the FIA and President Ben Sulayem of breaching the FIA’s own statutes and undermining principles of good governance. Richards’ key allegations also included a lack of integrity and openness in the FIS decision-making processes, a culture of intimidation at the FIA, where committees are used to confirm pre-approved decisions as opposed to exercising democratic practices in decision-making.

Richards set his concerns about the erosion of accountability and good governance within the FIA in a ‘situation [that] has progressively worsened’, including the limitation of ethics committees and the limiting of the ‘proper function’ of the WMSC. Richards called for other member organisations and national governing bodies to resist the increasingly authoritarian habits of the FIA.

Legal Implications

Motorsport UK, at the time of writing, is considering its legal options to challenge the barring of Richards from the WMSC meeting. While legal action being brought against the FIA is unprecedented, legal action against international sports federations is not unprecedented. In 2023, a case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport against the International Weightlifting Federation President for breach of governance standards such as transparency, procedural clarity and integrity. CAS ruled against the IWF (Agapitov v Adamfi [2023]). FIFA and the IAAF have also historically faced legal scrutiny, which has led to regulatory reforms.

If Motorsport UK proceeds with their legal action, the FIA could face considerable reputational damage as its credibility depends on the trust placed in it by members and stakeholders. A legal battle may also impact their ability to negotiate with commercial partners, event holders, and governments impacts many of the FIA-sanctioned series.

The fallout has been swift, with several WMSC members having privately expressed support for Richards, though few have spoken publicly, possibly out of fear of similar reprisals. Several journalists have highlighted the unusual nature of the dispute and its potential to destabilise the FIA. However, given the ongoing controversy over the FIA’s disintegrating governance standards, public opinion appears to generally side with Richards, viewing him as standing up for sporting integrity and ethics. The implications for all FIA-sanctioned series are serious. Any governance crisis within the FIA could disrupt key decisions, delay rule changes, and fracture the sport’s delicate political balance

What's Next?

Motorsport UK has laid out a clear position: it wants the NDA withdrawn or significantly revised, the reinstatement of Richards’ WMSC rights, and a review of current governance practices. If those conditions are not met, legal action or even withdrawal from certain FIA processes could follow.

The FIA, so far, has been mostly silent—offering vague statements about policy consistency and member integrity. Whether those changes will depend on internal pressure and the response from other national bodies.

Potential outcomes could include legal proceedings initiated by Motorsport UK or a coalition of organisations against the FIA, which, with Richards’ current statements, looks like the most likely outcome. Another possibility is internal reforms if pressure on the FIA continues to build.

While this is an ongoing dispute within motorsport, with the outcomes largely unknown, it will have wide-reaching implications on motorsports governance. Figures like Richards have an important role in attempting to hold institutions up to scrutiny and ensure ethical and accountable leadership and governance standards. The coming months will be critical for the FIA to see if they are able to reform from within or whether legal action will need to be taken to hold them accountable for their alleged breach of international sporting standards of good governance.

https://motorsportuk.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025_03_Revolution-Special-Edition.pdf

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/articles/c1jw82zwrjzo