In a post on Instagram, Ben Sulayem said he was “considering making improvements to Appendix B,” the regulation that outlines penalties for a broad range of offenses including swearing, political speech, and any act or comment deemed morally harmful or damaging to the image of the FIA. For F1 drivers, those penalties start at €40,000 ($45,500 USD).
Russell, speaking Thursday ahead of the Miami Grand Prix, expressed skepticism over Ben Sulayem’s suggestion that meaningful dialogue with drivers has taken place. He pointed to the lack of acknowledgment following an open letter sent by the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association (GPDA) last season, voicing opposition to the rule.
“We want to see these things put into action, rather than just hearing that ‘we’re considering things,’” the Mercedes driver said. “We all consider a lot of things. Until it’s actually changed, the words don’t mean anything.”
The rule—introduced by the FIA this year—was met with widespread disapproval across multiple disciplines, including the World Rally Championship, where drivers labeled it overly strict and out of touch with modern sports culture.
The timing of the controversy is notable. Ben Sulayem is seeking re-election as FIA president this year and currently faces no public challenger. However, his relationship with F1 drivers has remained fraught since his tenure began after the 2021 season. Early flashpoints included a rule banning jewelry in the cockpit, a move that drew criticism from Lewis Hamilton. More tension followed the dismissal of several respected F1 figures, including race director Niels Wittich, just before the 2023 Las Vegas Grand Prix.
Hamilton, never shy about expressing concerns regarding governance in F1, has been consistently critical of the FIA’s transparency and accountability. Asked last year whether he supported Ben Sulayem, Hamilton responded bluntly: “He never has.”
“There’s a real lack of accountability here, within this sport, within the FIA,” Hamilton said at the time. “Things happen behind closed doors. There’s no transparency, no accountability. The fans deserve better.”
While Ben Sulayem previously dismissed drivers’ frustration over the conduct code as “none of their business,” Russell confirmed the drivers had not been meaningfully consulted since last year’s letter. However, he did acknowledge some discussion had taken place during the season-opening Australian Grand Prix.
“It’d be great if changes were made and the drivers were at least heard,” Russell said. “It’s just in the best interests of the sport. Common sense should be applied. But again, we’ll only comment when we see actual change.”
Friday driver briefings during race weekends—where issues are theoretically discussed—have done little to move the needle, according to Russell, who reflected on how the role of the GPDA has expanded into political territory.
“When the GPDA was founded, it wasn’t about politics—it was about safety and improving the sport,” he said. “Now we’re talking about fines and swearing instead of what we’re actually here to do: race, entertain, innovate. Something has to change.”
During the news conference, Russell nudged Hamilton to weigh in. Hamilton obliged, reinforcing the need for greater collaboration between drivers and the sport’s governing body.
“The GPDA is very unified,” Hamilton said. “We want to work with the FIA. But over time, communication has been difficult. Ultimately, we don’t hold a power seat at the table—and that needs to change.”
Hamilton hinted that F1 could eventually consider a more formalized drivers' union, similar to those in other professional sports. “We’re not trying to control things,” he said. “We just want our voices heard. Decisions are being made by people who’ve never been in our position. That’s why having our perspective matters.”
As the FIA weighs whether to reform Appendix B, the message from the drivers is clear: don’t just promise change—deliver it.