The consequences of business becoming more important than the sport?

I totally understand why casual sports fans, reporters, and observers smell a rat after Sunday’s Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. But, as a passionate motorsports fan, I know that the situation is far more complex than it first appears.

To get your head around what happened, you have to understand the approach that the FIA has taken all season long. Fans wanted better, tighter racing. We wanted the drivers to slug it out on track. We wanted less intervention from stewards and so Liberty Media, the FIA, and Michael Masi were happy to oblige.

From the get-go this year, they adopted a “let them race” attitude, which has resulted in the popularity of Formula One going stratospheric. Everyone is talking about the sport and the value of the business has gone through the roof.

On track, the inevitable consequence of this approach is that drivers got their elbows out and racing got tougher. By giving us what we asked for, the FIA invited controversy and criticism. It was a brave move that has paid off handsomely, with this season being described as the "greatest ever". We witnessed a titanic battle between a 7-times World Champion and the pretender to the throne, that went right to the last lap of the very last race.

It's been amazing. But, it’s also been a season that has polarised opinion and created rancour and division. While we wanted great racing and great sporting moments from our heroes, some claim that the FIA are guilty of engineering events to reach this climax.

Let’s have a look at some recent facts.

In Brazil, a robust defensive move by Max Verstappen took both he and Lewis Hamilton off the road. The stewards decided no action was required. It was deemed a racing incident, and many in the paddock were perplexed by this, some even suggesting that it created a precedent for bad behaviour.

Last week, telemetry seems to clearly show that Max brake-tested Lewis. This time the stewards acted, but only with a 5-second penalty. Again, many people were left stunned. The primary duty of the FIA is to make sure the sport is safe for drivers and spectators. Surely if a driver is found to have deliberately caused an accident, the penalty should be much more severe?

At Abu Dhabi on Sunday, the first lap incident between Max and Lewis was noted, but no action was taken. This time it was Lewis who seemed at fault. Following an aggressive, but totally legal move by Max, Lewis left the circuit and gained an advantage by cutting the corner. Michael Masi wanted to let them race and suggested that Lewis had given the time advantage back, even though he maintained a position he would otherwise have lost.

We’ll never know if there was a levelling up going on in his head. But in reality, it made very little difference as Lewis clearly had the faster car and would have passed Max at some stage, especially as Max was on soft tyres.

Aside from the action on track, there was also a lot of chatter on the radio. When Giovanazzi’s car pulled up on Lap 36, Toto Wolf was heard pleading with the race director not to bring out a safety car. Again, this sort of lobbying has been going on all season. The FIA has encouraged transparency, with fans now listening eagerly to Team Radio. Indeed, just last week, many of us were astounded to hear Michael Masi negotiating with Red Bull over the penalty Max should incur, having cut a corner and gaining an advantage.

There’s a general rule in Formula One that if you are to stand any chance of winning, you “do the opposite of what he does”. So once the racing gods had spoken and Latifi crashed out on Lap 52, Max was suddenly in the box seats.

Mercedes had to decide if they should stop for tyres or carry on. The danger was that if they stopped, Max would keep going, and because his tyres were much younger, there would be little chance of catching him. They were in a typical Catch-22 situation, something that is all part and parcel of the strategic element of Formula One.

It’s fair to assume that Mercedes management will also have considered what the race director was likely to do. As this is normal practice, they will have expected him to let back-markers pass. But they probably also expected this to take too long, and with only a few laps left, Lewis wouldn’t have to defend his position and the win would be his. So, the team decided to keep track position, and told Lewis to stay out.

As soon as Red Bull saw this, they pulled the trigger and gambled. Max was called into the pits for a quick change of tyres. Even though he dropped back to seventh, with 5 cars between him and Lewis, Red Bull will also have expected the race director to let the back-markers through. Once they were out of the way, Max would be right behind Lewis on brand new soft tyres, and so Lewis would be a sitting duck if the race restarted.

It turned out to be a masterstroke.

But in Formula One, nothing is ever that simple. Initially, the race director made an unexpected decision NOT to let the back-markers through. This appeared to follow lobbying by Mercedes. Not to be outdone, Red Bull then managed to persuade him to reverse that decision, and so back-markers were eventually let through.

In principle, that was the correct call. The idea is always to get back-markers out of the way and let the race leaders fight it out. This is normally what happens in these scenarios. The problem is that the race director didn’t allow all the back-markers to pass. Instead, he only told the 5 drivers who were between the title contenders to go through. He also didn’t wait on them joining the end of the chain, and pretty much simultaneously pulled in the safety car and restarted the race on the same lap.

I have never seen that before, and it definitely isn’t normal protocol. The race director appears to have some discretion, and he used this discretion in an effort to finish the season on a high note by “letting them race” to the end. Rightly or wrongly, it's important to note this is the same philosophy they've applied all season.

Now, I’ve heard a story that all the teams were presented with this very scenario during the season, and they all agreed that it was better to let a race end properly rather than behind a safety car. It would be good to know if that story is true. If so, surely Mercedes cannot complain?

In conclusion, I am conflicted. I have to say that the continual harassment of the race director is farcical. It genuinely sounds ridiculous and brings the sport into disrepute. What other sport allows the referee to be influenced or bullied in this manner? Michael Masi already has to make split-second decisions and he has an almost impossible job to do. Things happen very quickly in Formula One, so this added pressure is unacceptable.

I wanted Max to win, but the outcome just doesn’t seem right. I am sure there is no conspiracy. I am sure the FIA think what they’ve done was in the best interests of the sport. After all, they’ve given us exactly what we asked for. But it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Some will argue that they interfered, contrived or "manipulated" to create a spectacle for their television audience. I don't know. All I do know is that I’m not happy. I feel for Max and for Lewis, and I can’t shake the feeling that this is what happens to a sport when business becomes more important than the sport itself.