A Paris court has delivered the judicial equivalent of “we’ll deal with this mess later.” The FIA presidential election can proceed as planned on December 12th in Tashkent, despite Laura Villars’ legal challenge highlighting how spectacularly broken the entire process is. Don’t worry though. They’ll properly investigate whether the election was legitimate sometime in February 2026. After Mohammed Ben Sulayem’s already been crowned unopposed. Again.
Nothing screams “democratic process” quite like letting a questionable election happen first, then checking whether it was legal afterwards, does it?
When One Person Ruins Democracy for Everyone
Here’s the beautiful absurdity that triggered this entire legal circus. Under current FIA regulations, presidential candidates must present a list of prospective vice-presidents drawn from the federation’s global regions. Sounds reasonable until you discover what happens when only one qualified candidate declares from an entire continent.
Fabiana Ecclestone was the only person from South America who put their name forward. She chose to serve under Ben Sulayem. Which automatically meant Laura Villars, Tim Mayer, and Virginie Philipott couldn’t meet the requirements. Game over. Democracy defeated by a technicality.
It’s the electoral equivalent of musical chairs where someone’s removed all the seats except one before the music even starts. Perfectly legal according to the rulebook. Completely ridiculous in practice.
The Court Decision Nobody Really Wanted
Robin Binsard, Villars’ lawyer, explained the verdict with admirable restraint. The urgent applications judge decided this dispute “must be heard on the merits” with a hearing scheduled for February 16th, 2026. Translation? The election happens now. Questions about whether it was legitimate get answered later.
“The urgent applications judge held that this dispute must be heard on the merits, and we will therefore continue this litigation against the FIA before the judges sitting on the merits.” – Robin Binsard, Laura Villars’ Lawyer
Villars’ legal team released a statement emphasising the judge “has not followed any of the FIA’s arguments” and “has not ruled on any substantive point.” Which sounds suspiciously like judicial fence-sitting. The court’s basically said the complaints about electoral irregularities are serious enough to require proper examination, but not serious enough to actually stop the dodgy election happening.
Brilliant logic. Let’s crown the king first, then decide whether the coronation was legal afterwards. What could possibly go wrong?
Ben Sulayem’s Unopposed Victory Tour
So Ben Sulayem gets his second four-year term regardless. The championship standings might be exciting this season, but the FIA’s leadership race? Already decided before voting even begins.
The election will proceed as scheduled in Uzbekistan. Ben Sulayem will be returned unopposed. And sometime in February, a French court will examine whether any of this was actually legitimate. By which point he’ll have been president for two months already.
If the court eventually rules the electoral process was dodgy, what happens then? Do they retroactively strip him of the presidency? Force a new election? Issue a strongly worded letter and move on? The judgment leaves all these questions delightfully unanswered.
When Democracy Is Just Paperwork
The real scandal isn’t Ben Sulayem winning. It’s the regulatory framework that makes competitive elections virtually impossible. When a single person from one region can effectively eliminate all opposition by choosing who to support, your democratic process has fundamental structural problems.
Villars wanted the election suspended until these issues could be addressed properly. The court said no, but also admitted the concerns are serious enough to warrant investigation. Which is the institutional equivalent of “you’re probably right, but we’re doing it anyway.”
The February hearing could theoretically overturn the election result or declare it invalid. But overturning elections after the fact creates its own chaos. So we’ll likely get a verdict acknowledging the process was flawed whilst concluding there’s nothing practical that can be done about it now.
The Coronation Continues
December 12th approaches. Tashkent awaits. Ben Sulayem’s unopposed victory is assured. And somewhere in Paris, judges are preparing to examine whether any of this was legitimate, several months too late to actually matter.
Perhaps they should add a new regulation requiring presidential candidates to present their legal challenge strategy alongside their vice-presidential lists? At least then everyone would know the election might be overturned before they bother voting.
Meanwhile, the F1 calendar races towards Abu Dhabi’s title showdown. At least that contest still has multiple possible winners. The FIA presidency? Not so much.
Will the February hearing change anything? Or will it simply confirm what everyone already knows? The FIA’s electoral system is broken, but nobody with the power to fix it has any incentive to do so.
