Mohammed Ben Sulayem has been re-elected as FIA president. Shocking development, isn’t it? The man who changed the rules so thoroughly that every single opponent withdrew has somehow managed to secure another four years running motorsport’s governing body. Nothing screams “democratic process” quite like being the only candidate on the ballot, does it?
The 64-year-old Emirati will serve until 2029 after Friday’s formality in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A vote where members could choose between Ben Sulayem or absolutely nobody else. What a thrilling electoral contest that must have been.
When Your Opponents Can’t Even Run Against You
Here’s how democracy works at the FIA. Want to challenge the incumbent president? Simple. Just assemble a team of seven vice-presidents from six global regions. Easy, right? Except there’s only one eligible South American vice-president. Fabiana Ecclestone, wife of former F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone. And she’s already pledged her support to Ben Sulayem.
Former FIA steward Tim Mayer initially threw his hat in the ring. So did Swiss racing driver Laura Villars and influencer Virginie Philippot. All three discovered the delightful reality that you can’t actually complete your presidential list when one region has a single option who’s already chosen sides.
Mayer withdrew in October, calling the process an “illusion of democracy” whilst suggesting eligible South American candidates may have been “persuaded, pressured, or promised something not to stand.” What a cynical suggestion about an organisation that’s definitely transparent and definitely not controlling the narrative.
The Legal Challenge That Won’t Stop Anything
Villars wasn’t having it. She sued the FIA over what she described as an undemocratic process. A Paris court ruled on December 3rd that Friday’s election could proceed but scheduled a full trial for February 16th, 2026. Which means Ben Sulayem’s re-election could theoretically be annulled.
Theoretically. In practice, he’s already been confirmed for another four years whilst lawyers argue about whether blocking all opposition candidates constitutes proper democratic procedure.
“The election was conducted in line with the FIA’s statutes through a robust and transparent voting process, reflecting the democratic foundations of the federation and the collective voice of its global membership.” – FIA statement
Robust and transparent. That’s what you call an election where rule changes conveniently prevented anyone else from running. The FIA’s really stretching the definition of democracy here, aren’t they?
Financial Success Whilst Everything Else Burns
Credit where it’s marginally due. Ben Sulayem inherited a financial disaster in 2021. The FIA posted a 24 million Euro loss during the pandemic. By 2024, he’d turned that into a €4.7 million profit. The forecast for 2025? Another €4.4 million surplus.
So the governing body’s bank account looks healthy. Shame about literally everything else. His first term delivered controversy after controversy. The jewellery ban that had Lewis Hamilton turning up to Miami decked out in rings and necklaces. The profanity clampdown that treats grown adults like schoolchildren. Constant conflicts with Formula 1 over officiating standards.
Drivers are pushing for permanent, paid stewards to replace the rolling panel of volunteers who currently oversee penalties. Ben Sulayem’s FIA remains unwilling to commit. Why professionalise the stewarding process when you can maintain the current chaos?
The Andretti Situation Nobody’s Forgotten
To Ben Sulayem’s credit, he pushed hard for F1 to accept an 11th grid slot. His support for Michael Andretti’s bid eventually morphed into the General Motors-backed Cadillac entry arriving in 2026. That’s genuinely positive for the sport.
But it also sparked massive friction between the FIA and Formula 1’s commercial rights holders, who initially rejected Andretti’s application before eventually accepting a modified version. Ben Sulayem’s public pushing forced F1’s hand whilst creating institutional tension.
Four More Years of What, Exactly?
Ben Sulayem delivered his victory speech with predictable platitudes.
“Thank you to all our FIA Members for voting in remarkable numbers and placing your trust in me once again. We have overcome many obstacles but here today, together, we are stronger than ever. It is truly an honour to be FIA President, and I am committed to continuing to deliver for the FIA, for motorsport, for mobility, and for our Member Clubs in every region around the world.” – Mohammed Ben Sulayem
We’ve overcome many obstacles. Translation? We’ve successfully prevented anyone else from challenging my position. Strength through eliminating opposition. What a delightful democratic principle.
Deputy President for Sport Malcolm Wilson, Deputy President for Automobile Mobility and Tourism Tim Shearman, and Senate President Carmelo Sanz de Barros were all re-elected alongside him. The entire leadership team returns for another four years, confirmed in an election where nobody else could actually stand.
When February’s Trial Actually Matters
The February 16th hearing will examine whether the FIA’s election process violated proper democratic standards. Villars’ complaint centres on those rule requirements that made assembling a complete presidential list impossible for challengers.
Could the court actually annul Ben Sulayem’s election? Possibly. Will they? That’s considerably less certain. The FIA’s already confirmed his second term. Lawyers can argue about legitimacy whilst he continues running motorsport’s governing body exactly as he has for four years.
Perhaps the court will decide that preventing all opposition candidates through carefully crafted regional requirements doesn’t constitute democracy? Or maybe they’ll conclude the FIA’s statutes technically allowed this farce, making it legally sound even if ethically questionable?
Either way, Ben Sulayem’s secured his position. Four more years of conflicts with F1. Four more years of controversial decisions. Four more years of running unopposed because the rules conveniently prevent anyone else from challenging him.
Democracy in action, everyone. Aren’t we fortunate to witness such transparent governance?
