The “unfair treatment” which led FIA deputy president Reid to resign

Last week, former rally co-driver and FIA deputy president for sport Robert Reid publicly announced his resignation – in an election year, the equivalent of rolling a grenade under the door.

Now he has taken to Substack to clarify his reasons for quitting the post. In the published statement he thanked those within motorsport and the FIA member clubs who had sent him messages of support – and once again emphasised what he sees as a lack of communication and transparency from above.

“It is interesting, but not wholly surprising, that many of those messages of support came with the caveat of not being willing to say anything publicly for fear of retaliation, which highlights some of the issues we face,” he wrote.

“I would never ask anyone to put themselves in what they feel is an uncomfortable position, be it through a letter of support or a social post showing clear endorsement, as I don’t feel that it would be fair to do so. From other quarters the silence has been deafening.

“As I said in my initial statement, my decision to resign was not about personalities or politics. It was about principles. I took on this role with a clear mandate: to help lead a transparent, accountable, and member-led federation.”

Reid’s departure was the latest indication of fault lines within the FIA’s membership over its governance, an issue thrown into stark relief by Motorsport UK chairman David Richards publishing an open letter last month.

While FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem’s often eccentric conduct, and seemingly random diktats regarding fringe issues such as driver jewellery and driver lexicon, have occupied centre stage in terms of headlines, the disquiet runs deeper than that.

During the run-up to the last election four years ago, Ben Sulayem assured putative supporters that he would be a hands-off president who would delegate operational matters to a professional executive team. In David Richards’ first salvo last month, he explained that this was why the UK’s national club supported Ben Sulayem over the British candidate, Graham Stoker.

But Ben Sulayem’s critics say the direction of travel has actually been towards a concentration of power into the president’s hands and, with it, a lack of transparency surrounding decision-making. This culminated in a furore over an insistence that binding non-disclosure agreements be signed before a meeting of the World Motor Sport Council at the end of February.

Among the most contentious issues in play behind the scenes is the FIA’s decision to take the promotion of the World Rallycross Championship in-house. Ben Sulayem’s critics point out that this is, in effect, a breach of the separation between church and state, as it were – the FIA should not be both the governing body of a branch of motorsport and be responsible for its commercial exploitation.

There is legal precedent for this. In 1999 the European Union’s competition commission launched an antitrust investigation into the FIA and Formula One Management, then presided over by Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone. The EU’s position was that the relationship between these two individuals, and the bodies they represented, was altogether too cosy.

Indeed, Ecclestone held a position as the FIA’s head of promotions.

The EU felt there was a clear conflict of interest between the FIA’s role as regulator of international motor racing and its commercial interests. To avoid protracted and expensive legal action it was highly likely to lose, the FIA capitulated: Ecclestone stepped down from his role and divested himself of commercial interests in motorsports other than F1, while Mosley controversially ‘leased’ the F1 commercial rights to FOM.

Ben Sulayem’s annexation of the World Rallycross commercial rights is certain to open this issue up again.

Johan Kristoffersson, Volkswagen Polo

Photo by: Red Bull Content Pool

“One of the clearest and most troubling examples of this breakdown involved the internalisation of the World Rallycross Championship,” wrote Reid. “I repeatedly raised concerns, both about the governance process and potential legal implications, and received no response, despite my elected responsibilities and fiduciary obligations.

“Eventually, I had no choice but to seek external legal advice and support. Only then did I receive a response, but unfortunately it lacked the clarity and rigour I had hoped for. I was told, in broad terms, that the governance process was sound and there was no legal risk.

“But no evidence or explanation was offered to support those assurances. As someone accountable to the membership and exposed to personal liability, that was simply not acceptable.”

Reid also clarified his stance on the other issue raised by Richards, the enforced signing of NDAs ahead of a WMSC meeting. It is known that the FIA leadership has been vexed by the quantity of information leaking into the public domain from private meetings.

“One journalist said to me that perhaps the FIA should be more concerned with why people are leaking than who is doing it and I think that’s worth reflecting on,” he wrote.

“I did not refuse to sign the NDA amendment. I simply requested a short extension in order to seek legal advice on a complex document governed by Swiss law, which was presented with a relatively short deadline. That request was denied.

“As a result, I was excluded from the World Motor Sport Council meeting, in my view, both unfairly and unlawfully. Ten days later, my FIA email was disabled without notice. Multiple requests for assistance and explanation went unanswered until, following a legal letter from my counsel, I was informed this had been a deliberate decision.

Alexander Wurz, Robert Reid, Deputy President for Sport of the FIA

Photo by: DPPI

“I spoke up when I felt fundamental principles were being eroded. I did so respectfully, constructively, and always with the aim of safeguarding the integrity of our sport. But doing so came at a cost.

“It became clear that raising legitimate concerns was not always welcomed and I experienced firsthand how challenging the status quo can lead to exclusion rather than dialogue. I don’t regret speaking up. But I do believe I was treated unfairly for doing so.”