5 minute read
The Race for Influence in Formula 1
In the context of recent reports that Formula 1 rejected a £16 billion takeover bid from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, discussions around “sportswashing” have resurfaced. Sportswashing refers to the practice of international governments and organisations taking advantage of the devoted fan bases and high viewership of different sports in order to improve their reputation. F1 is one of the means through which countries attempt to ameliorate their image on the international stage, but not without conflicts around political expression.
The Grand Prix being hosted in countries such as Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, and Russia is a prime example of sportswashing. The runup to the Azerbaijan Grand Prix in 2016 was mired in controversy regarding government corruption and human rights abuses, as seen in the imprisonment of investigative journalist Khadija Ismayilova. The success of this event from an organisational perspective detracted from criticisms surrounding the Azerbaijani government, improving many people’s perceptions of said government.
Advertisement
By hosting these events, these countries open themselves up to international exposure and coverage, receiving hundreds of firsttime visitors and members of the press. Being bestowed with the honour of hosting such a highprofile sporting event can potential ly legitimise the past and current actions of these aforementioned “unclean” regimes by appealing to fans. More importantly, major sporting events can imbue a government with soft power, so sporting federations cannot ignore the implications of their decisions. Governments themselves are well aware of this tool. Since 2008, Singapore has substantially invested in hosting the Grand Prix in an attempt to present itself as a global hub for travel and commerce. A wellhosted F1 race enables the government to project an image of high organisational capacity that may be far from reality.
However, opposition groups often use these F1 events to express their discontent, as seen in the ongoing legal efforts by the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy against F1 for continuing to host the race in Bahrain. In hosting races, governments risk giving a platform to opposition groups. Strong poli to a £33 million per year deal with F1, allowing them to be a title sponsor in multiple races, including this year’s British Grand Prix. cing is often the government’s solution in these cases; for example, Najah Yusuf, a civil servant, was imprisoned before the 2017 Bahrain race for criticizing it online.
An undeniable truth about F1 is that money talks. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, and Bahrain are allegedly paying upwards of £45 million per year for the privilege to host a race on the calendar. Additionally, partially stateowned companies such as Saudi’s Aramco have agreed
Countries with poor human rights records have used F1 as a platform for decades, going back to the funding provided by the Apartheid regime to host the South African Grand Prix. Countries can use the power granted to them through hosting these tournaments to restrict the freedom of drivers to take a stand against injustices. The execution of 81 individuals in one day in Saudi Arabia in the leadup to their Grand Prix last year was left unaddressed by many countries and human rights organizations, and F1 missed the chance to speak out about the issue.
Organizing and running highprofile events such as a Grand Prix is costly because of the infrastructure investments required to handle the influx of F1 teams, media, and fans over a single weekend. This might require the construction of new hotels, grandstands, and new tracks, as was the case for Saudi Arabia in advance of their first Grand Prix in 2021. Despite being expensive, these investments have a high payoff in the form of soft power which might then be translated into economic gains.
The fact that countries are willing to contribute such significant sums is a testament to how much they value F1 as an international political tool. Furthermore, these races present an opportunity to advertise their country to investors and promote trade with ot her countries, as the ability to successfully host such a largescale event makes countries appear to be prosperous, attractive investment prospects.
Some factors make F1 a stronger candidate for use towards political ends compared to other sporting events such as the Olympics or the World Cup. Firstly, there are the particularities in F1’s process of choosing where to host races. F1’s parent company, Liberty Media, holds the ultimate decision on where to host races, making it easier for F1’s decisions to be influenced by large financial donations. In organizations such as the International Olympic Committee and FIFA, there is a fairer voting process which decides the host, although this is not always foolproof either.
Secondly, F1 has historically been a financiallyoriented sport, where money has had a decisive impact on decisions for decades. Countries such as Monaco have been involved with the sport since its beginnings, and drivers often obtain entries in the championship by paying teams to let them drive, an example of this being Pastor Maldonado’s participation in F1 being sup
Multiyear race contracts mean that countries can signal a longterm commitment to the sport and extend the opportunity for sportswashing, volved effectively hold a veto through the threat of pulling out if proceedings on and off the track are not conducted in a way they see fit. In 2021, F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali stated that allowing Saudi Arabia and Qatar to host ra ces would facilitate progress in the countries on human rights issues. This is due to clauses in their contracts requiring that human rights are respected inso compared to oneoff events such as the World Cup or the Olympics. Moreover, governments choose to appeal to F1’s predominantly western European and American audience due to the relative wealth and political influence of this demographic, which is echoed when especially highincome or famous attendees make an appearance.
These financial benefits place F1 and the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) in a compromized position, as the countries in far as F1 is involved. However, this comes off as a concession — wherein F1 is more concerned with maintaining this relationship and keeping up appearances — rather than as a decisive measure.
In December 2022, the FIA banned all personal, political, and religious statements from those participating in FIAsanctioned events without express approval. This was presumably in response to drivers such as Lewis Hamilton and Sebastian Vettel using their platform to highlight problems faced in some of the countries they raced in, such as LGBTQ+ rights in the Middle East. These actions included wearing particularly decorated helmets in so lidarity with political movements and speaking publicly on these issues. They are also politically vocal in liberal democracies, with Hamilton frequently wearing clothing with statements supporting the Black Lives Matter movement and Vettel advocating for action on climate change on platforms such as BBC Question Time. The FIA deciding to ban political symbols undermines drivers’ influence on matters of contemporary significance. This draws a parallel to the decision of several European teams not to wear One Love armbands in support of the LGBTQ+ community in order to avoid recei calendar in response to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was wellreceived and acts as an example of a sports organization exercising soft power against governments. This could act as a precedent for taking other such stands such as, for example, against Azerbaijan for its actions in the conflict with Armenia. These races could act as a highprofile platform on which to call for governments to be held accountable for their wrongdoings. ving yellow cards at the World Cup in Qatar.
The decision to remove the Russian Grand Prix from the
The backlash from teams and drivers against the mentioned FIA ban on political statements, the fai lure of the Saudi Public Investment Fund’s attempt to buy F1, and FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem agreeing to step back from direct intervention in F1 may indicate shift ing attitudes. Future conflicts around sportswashing and human rights abuses will be especially significant in races held in nondemocratic countries, and will be a key part of the 2023 season, regardless of their outcome.
