Senior FIA figures have been warned that the governing body’s credibility is at risk if they vote in support of proposed changes to the statutes put forward by president Mohammed Ben Sulayem.
This week's FIA General Assembly meeting in Macau is set to make a call on Thursday on a number of modifications to the statutes.
The proposed revisions include potential FIA presidential candidates being barred from standing if there is anything in their record that questions their professional integrity.
Furthermore, there is a plan to bring forward the deadline for presidential candidates to declare they are standing, increase the power of the president to appoint Senate members and also open the door to alter the composition of the World Motor Sport Council to limit numbers of the same nationalities sitting.
In a surprise development late on Wednesday ahead of the vote, one of the FIA’s founding member clubs, the Austrian OAMTC (Osterreichischer Automobil-, Motorrad- und Touring Club), sent a letter to FIA members sitting on its World Council for Automobile Mobility and Tourism (WCAMT) warning them of dire consequences if they back the revisions.
The lengthy letter, which was first reported by Reuters but has been seen by The Race, outlines the club's views and the legal advice it has been given amid growing concerns about the direction of the FIA. An FIA spokesperson contacted by Reuters said they were unaware of the letter.
Rather than feeling that the governing body had benefitted from the promises Ben Sulayem made about increased transparency and better governance prior to taking charge in 2021, the OAMTC said it is alarmed at what it feels is the dismantling of internal checks and the suppression of dissent.
"Damage to the FIA's credibility as an organisation has already occurred through repeated governance mis-steps and failings," it wrote.
"These are not anomalies: they are features of a system of governance that is malfunctioning, due to the absence of normal internal debate and discussion."
It added: "The FIA's standing in comparison to other international organisations is threatened by the self-inflicted wound of governance failure."
The OAMTC is mindful of the impact that recent controversies have had. These include changes to the statutes last year relating to the ethics and audit committees, as well as WMSC members being barred from meetings because they had not signed new non-disclosure agreements.
While Ben Sulayem has argued that the latest statute changes strengthen the governing body and ensure that it has access to the best people possible, not everyone is convinced.
The OAMTC states that, with Ben Sulayem set to stand again and potentially benefit the most from the revisions, that it would be bad for the FIA to support the modifications now.
In the letter that accompanied its analysis, which is published in full below, it urged members to either vote against the changes to the statutes or ask for more time for them to be analysed.
It argues there are big dangers associated with pushing something through that could be viewed as helping the current regime in an election rather than the governing body as a whole.
"Where there is even a risk of these changes appearing to benefit the current FIA administration, and not the FIA itself, the changes should not be adopted," it said.
"There is ample time for more careful reflection, and if these are desirable changes they will still be desirable at a future General Assembly after the next election.
"Further, there is a material risk that the proposed FIA Statute changes will be found legally invalid, as they have been endorsed through World Council meetings that were not properly constituted, having intentionally excluded elected members from participating and voting (due to those members not having signed punitive side contracts with the FIA, exposing them to personal penalties and damages)."
The OAMTC also expressed fears that, in light of previous changes to the statutes, the FIA had "entered a dark period of democratic backsliding."
It added: "In every such example, changes to bolster the sitting regime are cast as necessary for the greater good, and objectors are cast as the enemies of progress. In every such example, the outcome is a diminished and less capable system of governance.
"For the FIA the risks are immense. Already the world's public commentators routinely note the FIA's weak decision-making, repeated unforced errors and apparent lack of rigour and process.
"While this is survivable, the real threat comes from the growing erosion of confidence among members and stakeholders such as public bodies, governments, motorists, motorsport fans, and actual and potential key commercial partners, and even, potentially, law enforcement authorities capable of intervening in the FIA's affairs."
The OAMTC's letter in full
Vienna and Macau, 10 June 2025
Cover letter
Dear Members and Friends,
The Österreichischer Automobil-, Motorrad- und Touring Club has conducted an analysis, including with the benefit of external legal advice, on the proposed changes to the FIA Statutes to be considered and voted on during the General Assembly in Macau in June 2025.
In view of the importance of the changes proposed, and the content of the advice received, we have decided to share the key conclusions of our analysis with other FIA members. This is attached.
We appeal to all members to support our motion to remove the voting on the proposed FIA Statute changes from the General Assembly’s agenda. We propose to postpone the consideration of these amendments to a later General Assembly to allow for proper review and analysis especially given the majority of the proposed changes having a significant impact on the upcoming election cycle.
There is no urgency regarding these proposed changes. Seen in the context of other recent developments and previous changes to the FIA Statutes, they risk further contributing to the erosion of the FIA’s reputation for competent and transparent governance. It cannot be – and is not – a coincidence that changes relevant to the FIA’s elections have been promoted by the FIA’s leadership at the same time as the FIA’s incumbent President has announced an intention to run in those elections.
Where there is even a risk of these changes appearing to benefit the current FIA administration, and not the FIA itself, the changes should not be adopted. There is ample time for more careful reflection, and if these are desirable changes they will still be desirable at a future General Assembly after the next election.
Further, there is a material risk that the proposed FIA Statute changes will be found legally invalid, as they have been endorsed through World Council meetings that were not properly constituted, having intentionally excluded elected members from participating and voting (due to those members not having signed punitive side
contracts with the FIA, exposing them to personal penalties and damages). We therefore urge the FIA members to pause, and not vote on these proposed changes now, pending a proper review of the legality of these proposals.
We would urge all members to support us with our motion and in any case to consider voting against the proposed FIA Statute changes.
Yours faithfully,
Österreichischer Automobil-, Motorrad- und Touring Club
1
The highest standards of governance?
(1) The FIA has entered a dark period of democratic backsliding. Recent actions and changes within the FIA are inviting comparisons with the excesses of political leaders intent on deconstructing the checks and balances that come with responsible governance. Governance systems, whether in politics or in governing bodies such as the FIA, face a crisis when oversight-free decisions become possible, and systems of accountability are undermined and made ineffective.
(2) In every such example, changes to bolster the sitting regime are cast as necessary for the greater good, and objectors are cast as the enemies of progress. In every such example, the outcome is a diminished and less capable system of governance.
(3) For the FIA the risks are immense. Already the world’s public commentators routinely note the FIA’s weak decision-making, repeated unforced errors and apparent lack of rigour and process. While this is survivable, the real threat comes from the growing erosion of confidence among members and stakeholders such as public bodies, governments, motorists, motorsport fans, and actual and potential key commercial partners, and even, potentially, law enforcement authorities capable of intervening in the FIA’s affairs.
The expectations, and the opportunity
(4) We all know the promise and potential of the FIA to take its place on the world stage as one of the foremost international sporting and governing bodies.
(5) The expectations for bodies at our level are described in many global contexts, and are well summarised in a February 2024 declaration of EU Sport Ministers1to: “[p]romote values in sport and sport organisations, governed in compliance with the principles of democracy, transparency, integrity, solidarity, gender equality, openness, accountability, accessibility, social responsibility and respect for fundamental and human rights.” In the same declaration, Ministers “[a]sk the sport governing bodies to adhere to the highest standards of good governance […] while acknowledging their fundamental role in safeguarding the organisation of their sport”.
(6) As described in the FIA’s own Code of Ethics2the “FIA bears a special responsibility to safeguard the integrity and reputation of motor sport, automobile mobility and tourism […] worldwide”.
The Promise
(7) The current FIA leadership was elected on a promise to implement the highest standards of governance. The FIA President’s 2021 election manifesto included the commitment to ensure that “governance structures are compliant with best practices” and in order to do so the team would:
1 See Declaration of EU Sport Ministers, February 2024 here.
2 See FIA Code of Ethics, 8 December 2017, here.
2
(a) introduce a revised governance framework, reinforcing the role of the World Councils, becoming the de-facto Boards of Directors. Increase responsibility and authority of World Councils; and
(b) design a more effective oversight model, to align stakeholder priorities.
(8) The manifesto also provided that by the end of the first presidential term, the FIA would have: “a world class governance and transformed operating model, established a unified, business-driven management structure, empowered World Councils to drive strategy, effective commissions and working groups, transparent budgeting and thorough reporting”.
The reality
(9) A thorough external review and audit of the FIA’s management process and governance structure was indeed commissioned by the FIA from McKinsey and delivered in 2022.
(10) It identified multiple weaknesses, especially relating to the lack of checks and balances in the existing governance structure, and the lack of appropriate reporting lines and mandates for various internal functions with oversight functions. The prominent theme across the relevant recommendations was to enhance independence, for example to enhance the role and reporting lines of the FIA’s Ethics Committee and its Audit Committee.
(11) None of the critical changes proposed in the report regarding enhanced governance have been implemented.
(12) Instead, amendments to the FIA Statutes were passed in December 2024, which have largely dismantled the role of the FIA’s Ethics and Audit bodies and limited their ability to perform their roles effectively, and with the necessary independence.
(13) The fundamental changes to the FIA’s Ethics function were as follows:
• Certain members of the Ethics Committee are now proposed by the FIA Senate, not the FIA Members themselves, bringing appointments closer to the FIA leadership’s team.
• Limitations on who can serve as a member of the Ethics Committee because of other FIA roles have been removed, reducing independence. Now, the Ethics Committee can only carry out “an initial assessment” in relation to an ethical concern but the FIA President and the President of Senate have the authority to decide whether to take further action. Ethics enquiries can – in effect – be suppressed.
• The FIA’s Compliance Officer could, in the past, investigate any suspected irregularity and make a report to the Senate, the President of the Senate and in case the investigation concerned the FIA President, to the Ethics Committee. This function has simply been deleted.
(14) The fundamental changes to the FIA’s Audit function were as follows:
3
• Previously the Audit Committee had the function “to assure the accuracy, relevance and permanence of the accounting methods adopted for drawing up the consolidated and corporate accounts of the FIA and to check that the internal procedures for the collection and control of information guarantee this”. This function has been deleted and now the Audit Committee has the ability to review accounting methods only if requested by the President of the Senate. Financial scrutiny outside of the FIA leadership’s control has been abandoned.
• Previously the Senate was required to ‘act on the advice of the Audit Committee’. This requirement was abandoned, allowing the Senate now only to ‘consult’ the Audit Committee if it deems necessary. The Audit Committee’s role and function as a necessary interlocutor on financial audit matters has been vastly reduced.
(15) Instead of enhancing independent governance, as promised in the FIA leadership’s election manifesto and as recommended by external consultants, the 2024 FIA Statute changes have had the effect of dramatically undermining and compromising the FIA’s ethics and audit functions, as well as eliminating entirely the Compliance Officer’s investigative role. The changes centralise decision-making power with the FIA President and the Senate President, and allow Ethics Committee members to hold roles within FIA Members, raising concerns about the Committee’s future autonomy and ability to safeguard the FIA’s integrity and reputation.
(16) At the same time, the FIA has faced significant and repeated criticism regarding serious concerns over its integrity, transparency, and good governance. The FIA’s President was investigated for interfering in the running of two F1 races during the 2023 season by the FIA’s compliance officer, Paolo Basarri, who was subsequently dismissed. In the last year, there have been multiple dismissals and abrupt departures of high profile individuals within the organization including its CEO Natalie Robyn, sporting director Steve Nielsen, single-seater technical director Tim Goss, the head of the audit committee, Bertrand Badre, committee member Tom Purve and in April 2025 deputy president for sport, Robert Reid.
(17) Several of those departing have been subjected to extensive non-disclosure agreements to prevent them from speaking out about their experiences. Nonetheless, public comments from departing FIA officials have all centred on similar themes: the collapse in internal governance standards, the abandonment of commitments to reform, and a governing body ready to go to extremes to eliminate oversight, reduce transparency and punish legitimate disagreement.
The silencing of dissent
(18) The WMSC’s 28 members, like other FIA officers, are elected representatives with a mandate to serve the FIA. They have confidentiality requirements in place since their appointment and are bound by Article 4 of the FIA Code of Ethics which requires them to keep confidential any information communicated to them in the course of exercising their duties.
(19) In the face of growing internal concern regarding the actions of the FIA leadership, and facing the reality that existing internal bodies and officers would prove incapable of constraining the administration, the FIA’s leadership has also taken steps to limit the risk of external criticism. Specifically, it has sought to smother the possibility of debate
4
or criticism regarding FIA actions emerging by demanding a personal contractual commitment – outside the FIA’s Statutes or governance terms, outside of the FIA’s internal regulations and outside employment law – from each relevant FIA officer requiring them to pay up to €50,000 to the FIA in the event they breach confidentiality terms set by the FIA, plus the possibility of an additional undisclosed damages payment to the FIA.
(20) The terms imposed mean that the FIA itself will decide if someone has breached the terms of the confidentiality requirements. The person or body who will make such a determination is not identified, nor is there any requirement regarding process, a hearing, a time frame, a right of appeal, or any definition of what ‘confidentiality’ means in this context. Simply put, the process is designed to convey – and does effectively convey – that the current FIA leadership will on its own determine whether critics may be required to pay €50,000 and face other consequences if they dissent publicly about anything the leadership claims is confidential, all while internal means of voicing concerns have effectively been dismantled.
(21) It has also become clear that the FIA’s leadership has itself been unable to maintain a coherent legal or logical basis for its demands. It has offered or agreed different contractual commitments with different parties – who gets a better or different contract, the terms of those different contracts, and the basis for any contracts being different are wholly unexplained. The fact that differences can exist at all illustrate that this is not and was never an objective, rules-based requirement, but rather a personal and personalised means of controlling each individual outside of the FIA’s governance.
(22) The purpose of these supplemental constraints – not provided for in any FIA governance documents or statutes, and not replicated in any arm of any known global governing body – is principally to limit the risk of the FIA’s membership or the public finding out about the governance concerns that are being expressed within the FIA itself.
(23) Elected Members of the WMSC, the World Council for Automobile Mobility and Tourism (“WCAMT”) and other officers who have declined to submit to these extraordinary measures have been excluded from performing their functions, including by being excluded from the meetings of the bodies they have been elected to serve on. Such exclusion of the elected Members may have wide-ranging effects, including on the validity of the decisions taken by the WMSC and WCAMT in the absence of these Members. For this reason, the recently proposed FIA Statute changes cannot be said with certainty to have been validly put for the General Assembly’s consideration.
The next wave – the election cycle
(24) It is essential to understand the above context to appreciate fully the implications of the FIA Statute changes now being put to the FIA’s membership.
(25) The process of deconstructing the internal checks and balances within the FIA is largely complete, though one possible route remains through which the FIA’s leadership might face accountability: the ballot box.
(26) The suite of additional changes to the FIA Statutes now proposed are designed to be impactful upon the upcoming election cycle and beyond, specifically on the FIA’s
5
mobility functions. In each case, and taken together, the majority of these changes represent attempts to create advantages for the incumbent FIA leadership team.
(27) An assessment of each of these proposed changes and its implications is included in the Annex to this document.
Reputational and Legal Risk to the FIA
(28) Damage to the FIA’s credibility as an organisation has already occurred through repeated governance mis-steps and failings. These are not anomalies: they are features of a system of governance that is malfunctioning, due to the absence of normal internal debate and discussion.
(29) The FIA’s standing in comparison to other international organisations is threatened by the self-inflicted wound of governance failure.3
(30) While French and Swiss courts and other law enforcement authorities might typically be reluctant to intervene in the internal affairs of the FIA, members should be aware that genuine risks arise in circumstances where typical governance norms are exceeded and decisions are taken which cannot authentically be shown to be a reflection of the interests of the federation, but appear to reflect other interests. This is a risk in relation to personnel, in relation to dealing with internal and external parties and in respect of the commercial affairs of the FIA. External scrutiny is both more likely and more risky when our own internal processes have failed.
Your vote matters
(31) Through the practices of the current FIA leadership and the incremental changes of the FIA Statutes over the last two years, the FIA’s governance has deteriorated.
(32) This has not gone unnoticed by the world’s press, and the many constituents that the FIA’s member clubs and associations represent, and our ability to hold the FIA up as an example of appropriate governance on the international stage is diminishing.
(33) There is no objective need for any of the proposed FIA Statute changes identified, and there is certainly no urgency. The proposed changes are technical and may appear trivial to some voting members, but if accepted would represent an acquiescence in the further deconstruction of the FIA’s reputation for good governance. In addition, the proposed changes were approved through World Council meetings which were improperly constituted, having unjustifiably excluded elected Members from attending and voting without any legal basis supported by the FIA’s Statutes.
(34) We, the voting members, will all bear the consequences of our votes long into the future.
(35) We therefore urge all members to consider the broader context of these changes, to consider their potential impact on the election, if these are really necessary and if they could not instead be considered and debated at a later post-election General Assembly.
3 See the IOC Code of Ethics, Section D “Good Governance and Resources” 2024, Article 11, page 15, here, which outlines that the basic universal principles of good governance of the Olympic and Sports Movement, in particular transparency, responsibility and accountability, must be respected by all Olympic parties.
6
(36) We express our gratitude to all members who will support our motion to remove the voting on the proposed FIA Statute changes from the General Assembly’s agenda.
7
ANNEX
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED STATUTE CHANGES
Each of the eight proposed statute changes raises issues of fairness and consistency. They are particularly problematic in view of the demonstrated governance issues that already exist. These are discussed in turn below.
Overview: The period for submitting the complete presidential list for the FIA Presidential elections will be moved forward by four weeks, to no earlier than 70 days and no later than 49 days before the election. The deadline for submitting candidatures for the World Motor Sport Council (“WMSC”) will also be moved forward by four weeks, to 84 days before the election.
Purported Justification: According to the FIA, the current timeline leaves the Nominations Committee with insufficient time to verify the eligibility of candidates and to seek clarifications.
Commentary: The current FIA leadership is understood to have already identified the candidates it intends to put forward in the upcoming election cycle. The stated desire to enhance candidate vetting means, in reality, enhanced vetting of proposed opponents. Exactly as the FIA leadership has disabled the independence and effectiveness of its Audit and Ethics committees, there should be no realistic expectation that the vetting process under the administration’s control will prioritize scrutiny of the current President’s own candidates and allies. It is a well-recognised feature of the FIA’s election system that publicly declaring for a given list – in particular in opposition to the sitting administration – entails risks of being dis favoured, at least in the period between declaration and the election. It has never been necessary before in the FIA’s long history. This proposal is intended to discourage opposition, and to expose candidates launching challenges to prolonged lobbying and pressure in ways that are unlikely to be replicated for the incumbent’s candidates.
Overview: 21 of the 28 WMSC members, namely the 7 Vice Presidents for Sport and 14 elected WMSC members must be of different nationalities. Additionally, the Senate may propose up to two candidates for the WMSC who do not necessarily represent a Full Member with a competition on the International Sporting Calendar.
Purported Justification: The stated aim is to broaden the pool of eligible candidates and enhance the WMSC’s expertise.
Commentary: The purpose of these changes is to allow the FIA leadership to hand-pick supporters irrespective of the long-standing principle of balanced international representation, and to disregard the traditional requirement that candidates be from Full Members with a competition on the International Sporting Calendar. This is intended to ‘stack’ the WMSC with supporters rather than encourage diversity of opinion.
8
Overview: The start of the four-year term for members of the Audit Committee, Ethics Committee, and Nominations Committee will be aligned with the term of the presidential list members, with a transitional provision so that new members serve until the end of 2029.
Purported Justification: To allow consistency and synchronization in the terms of office across the key FIA bodies.
Commentary: This change would blatantly reduce the independence of oversight bodies if their terms are tied to the term of the executive leadership. It means, in essence, that committee members themselves would have an interest in election outcomes, and signals to committee members that supporting continuity in the governing administration could lead to continuity in committee appointments. The issue with this proposal is particularly acute with regard to the Nominations Committee – due to their critical role in vetting election candidates, they – self-evidently – should not have terms tied to the same election cycle or outcome.
Overview: The World Council for Automobile Mobility and Tourism (WCAMT) will include three representatives from Region I, who will be WCAMT vice presidents. These vice presidents will be drawn from Region I’s three regional subdivisions. The three vice presidents will be (a) the President of Region I (who may come from any of the three Region I subdivisions), and (b) two other vice presidents, though these may not come from the same subdivision as the President of Region I.
Purported Justification: The Statutes (at Article 14) enumerate that, apart from the Region 1 President, the two ‘other’ vice presidents from Region 1 will be appointed by the MENA Mobility Council and ACTA, thereby appearing to assume that the President of Region 1 will always be appointed by Region 1’s third subdivision, the EuroCouncil. The change purports to make clear that the President of Region I may come from any of Region 1’s subdivisions, and therefore the ‘other’ Vice-Presidents will not necessarily be from the MENA Mobility Council or ACTA, but could be from any of the three subdivisions.
Commentary: Despite its superficial appeal, this change leads to an undemocratic result. The President of Region I is elected by the three Region 1 subdivisions (referred to here as A, B and C). If a candidate from subdivision A did not have support within subdivision A, he/she might still be elected as President of Region 1 with support mainly from subdivisions B and C. In this scenario, subdivisions B and C would have ‘their’ candidate as President of Region 1, and would also each nominate a vice president. Subdivisions B and C would have double representation, and subdivision A would have no representative chosen from its ranks. This creates a concerning imbalance between subdivisions and potentially undermines due democratic process and representation.
9
Overview: An eligibility criterion will be introduced requiring that candidates for the presidential list, World Council for Automobile Mobility and Tourism, WMSC, and the Senate must not have “elements in the record” that could “call into question their professional integrity”.
Purported Justification: This criterion, already applicable in some other contexts, allegedly promotes consistency and upholds the integrity and reputation of the FIA’s leadership.
Commentary: Good governance requires clear, objective, and transparent standards for disqualification from elections, as well as an independent process for assessing candidates’ records to prevent abuse or arbitrary exclusion. In circumstances in which the FIA’s leadership appears willing to threaten or dismiss opponents, and circumvent standard governance processes, there can be no confidence that this arbitrary criterion would not be used to exclude candidates on vague or politically motivated grounds. The fact that this vague test is used elsewhere within the FIA is no comfort – the other contexts in which this test is used are not contested elections with rival campaigning candidates, but nomination processes. Also, the other contexts in which this test is used are amenable to verification and internal judicial oversight if required. There is no process or time for any verification or internal judicial oversight to occur in an election cycle, and the process itself could unfairly damage a candidate.
Overview: The Senate currently approves the confirmation or dismissal of up to four independent and qualified members of the Senate. This change would make this solely a prerogative of the FIA President.
Purported Justification: This change, which takes aways a Senate power, is claimed to “provide the Senate with more flexibility in having the expertise required for the many and varied topics it has to deal with and which may require an urgent decision”.
Commentary: Apart from the absurdity of the justification (that taking away the Senate’s power gives it more flexibility), this plainly and nakedly allows the FIA President to hand select (and dismiss) the Senate members who have the principal job of overseeing the FIA’s activities, including the President’s own activities. Self-evidently giving the FIA President authority to select and dismiss the Senate members weakens the ability of the Senate to perform its oversight functions, including and especially oversight of the President himself.
Overview: An administrative manager in each Region would oversee the Region’s activities and be appointed and dismissed by the President of the relevant Region, the President of the Senate and the Deputy President for Automobile Mobility and Tourism by two-thirds majority.
10
In addition, the President of the Region would chair the Regional Council of the sub-division from which he/she comes from.
Purported Justification: The administrative managers’ appointments supposedly aim to enable the Regions that have a similar positioning within the FIA to collaborate effectively and promote the sharing of experiences.
Commentary: The proposed harmonization undermines the Region’s autonomy to consider and appoint its own representatives. This further erodes the Region’s independence, and seeks to subsume elements of the Region’s internal governance into the broader FIA’s governance.
Overview: Any subdivision of the Automobile Mobility and Tourism Region can apply to become a Region in their own right while any new sub-division must consist of a minimum ten Full Members.
Purported Justification: The stated aim is to promote consistency as now only the subdivisions that exist can apply to be Regions and to ensure sufficient and appropriate membership representation within a subdivision.
Commentary: The statement that the changes promote consistency is absurd given that only Region I has subdivisions and only these subdivisions could become Regions in their own right under the FIA Statutes. Rather than supporting regional autonomy, this proposal in fact promotes disintegration of the Regions, and undermines cohesiveness, making small sub
divisions easier to control by the FIA itself. This proposal contradicts the AIT and the FIA merger agreement as well as the FIA President’s 2021 election manifesto’s promise to support bespoke regional plans for growth and to reinforce the regional model.
