F1 and the Law 2025

Introduction

With the new Formula One (“F1”) season well underway, another year of intense competition is unfolding between star drivers and storied teams as they contend for the World Championship. Amidst the spectacle of the on-track action, 2025 is also set to be an important season off the track. Among the matters set to be resolved this year are: a damages claim contending that the 2008 World Championship was awarded to the wrong driver due to a controversial in-race incident; a contract dispute between the Mclaren team and a former driver; and a number of disputes involving motorsport’s governing body, the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (“the FIA”), including a criminal complaint made against it by one of F1’s most influential individuals and a threat of legal action by Motorsport UK. This article will summarise the high-profile disputes to look out for over rest of the year.

Felipe Massa and the 2008 World Championship

An incident known as “Crashgate” is at the origin of Felipe Massa’s claim for compensation following what his lawyers have described as a “conspiracy” to deny him the 2008 World Championship.1 At the Singapore Grand Prix, the Renault driver Nelson Piquet Jr was instructed by the management of his team to purposefully crash his car in order to cause a safety car, which enabled his team mate Fernando Alonso to win his first race of the season.

Massa, who had been leading the race at the time of the crash, finished outside the points in thirteenth and would go on to lose the World Championship to Lewis Hamilton by a single point. However, since Piquet Jr did not reveal that he had crashed intentionally until 2009, it was not possible under the applicable FIA Regulations to seek to have the (manipulated) results voided as the 2008 FIA Prize Giving Ceremony had already taken place.

It is understood Massa intends to argue before the High Court that comments which Bernie Ecclestone, the former chief executive of F1, is alleged to have made in 2023 make clear that senior figures in F1 were in fact aware of “Crashgate” at the time and chose not to investigate in an attempt to protect the sport from a scandal, thus breaching the FIA International Sporting Code.

While it is recognised that the High Court is unlikely to be able to alter the race and championship results, it is understood that Massa is seeking at least £64 million in compensation and a declaration that he would have been champion had F1 and the FIA acted properly. The circumstances of Massa’s case are clearly exceptional, and a positive outcome for Massa could provide valuable insight on the approach of the courts in England and Wales as to the assessment of loss of chance claims brought by athletes.

Alex Palou and Mclaren

The current champion of the US-based IndyCar series, Alex Palou is widely considered to be one of the best drivers outside of F1. In 2023, Palou agreed to join the Mclaren IndyCar team for the 2024 season and take part in the team’s F1 testing and reserve driver programme. Mclaren is the only outfit with a team in both IndyCar and F1, and Palou reportedly wanted to pursue opportunities in F1.

However, Palou then decided not to join Mclaren for 2024, electing to remain at his existing IndyCar team (with whom he had already settled out of court when it sued him for breach of contract for joining Mclaren), and thus is alleged to have breached his contract with Mclaren. Mclaren claim that they are owed £23 million in compensation by Palou, a figure which accounts for a portion of his 2024 salary which had been paid in advance, the costs of their F1 driver testing programme which saw Palou take part in a solitary practice session at the 2022 US Grand Prix, and the costs incurred by missing out on sponsorship revenue and prize money while having to sign an inferior replacement driver.

It is understood that Palou, on the other hand, has admitted to breaching the contract, but contends that he had grounds to do so because no F1 race seat (which he believed had been promised to him) was forthcoming, and that Mclaren’s compensation claim is excessive. It will thus be interesting to see whether the parties are able to reach a resolution, or whether Mclaren’s wide-ranging claim for compensation is ultimately  heard in court.

The FIA

As motorsport’s law-making authority, the FIA has always figured prominently in F1-related legal disputes. In 2007, for instance, the FIA sanctioned Mclaren with the largest fine in the history of any sport for illegally copying the Ferrari car design in the “Spygate” scandal. In recent years, the FIA itself has come under increasing scrutiny in relation to its governance2.

One ongoing dispute relates to a criminal complaint filed against the FIA in the French domestic courts by one of F1’s most influential figures, Susie Wolff, who is the director of the F1 Academy programme and a former test driver. In December 2023, the FIA announced an investigation into alleged complaints that a senior F1 employee had shared confidential information with a team principal, and then allegedly briefed journalists that Wolff and her husband, the Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff, were the individuals concerned.

The Wolffs – who had not been notified of the announcement in advance – strenuously denied the allegations, and each of the nine other F1 teams confirmed that they had made no such complaints. The FIA quickly dropped its enquiry, but in March 2024 Susie Wolff announced that she had filed a criminal complaint, most likely on grounds of defamation.

In addition to the Wolff proceedings, the FIA is facing legal action from Motorsport UK, the British national governing body for the sport. On 5 March, its Chairman David Richards wrote a letter3 to members in which he expressed, inter alia, his disappointment that changes made to the FIA Audit and Ethics Committees meant that their scope had been “severely limited” and his concern that e-voting was being used to restrict debate at the World Motor Sport Council (“the WMSC”), of which he is an elected member. He then shared that he had been instructed by the FIA to sign a stringent new confidentiality agreement – which he characterises as a “gagging order” – else he would be “barred” from the WMSC.

Richards refused to sign the agreement and was subsequently denied access to the next WMSC meeting. He contends in his letter that this denial of access by the FIA breached its own Statutes, and has thus instructed lawyers to “challenge the FIA” by requesting that the FIA leadership answer a number of questions regarding their actions. Richards concludes that “unless [the FIA] address the issues we’ve raised, [Motorsport UK] will be engaging in further legal action”.

Unlike many sports federations, the FIA’s Statutes and Regulations do not provide for recourse to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (with the exception of anti-doping matters). Instead, internal disputes are resolved by two independent FIA courts, these being the FIA International Tribunal and the FIA International Court of Appeal. The former is ordinarily the court of first instance, though cases can only be referred to it by the FIA President. The latter is the forum for appeals against several types of sporting and non-sporting judgements, which notably includes appeals brought by FIA Members against decisions taken by an FIA body in relation to the interpretation or application of the FIA Statutes.

It will be interesting to see if Motorsport UK proceeds with further legal action and whether Ms Wolff is successful in her claim, and if these disputes will be resolved in a manner which can provide clarity to the ongoing debate regarding the governance of the FIA.

Conclusion

F1 enters its 75^th season this year, and throughout the history of the sport, its teams and drivers (and even its officials) have persistently battled as fiercely off the track as they have on it. The ongoing proceedings initiated by each of Massa, Mclaren, and Wolff, and the forthcoming legal action mooted by Richards, indicate that the rest of the 2025 season will be no exception in this regard.

Authored by 

Donna Bartley
Partner

Jonathon Huggett
Paralegal