Move over, FIFA, the FIA might take the crown for the most corrupt sporting association. FIA President Mohammad Ben Sulayem wants to repeal the laws that impose term limits on the position.
Currently, the rule says someone can serve no more than 3 terms, each lasting 4 years. So he wants to remain in charge for more than 12 years, which is the current maximum. The proposed change would remove this entirely, allowing a president to potentially remain in office indefinitely, subject to re-election. Given that in the last election there were no rivals in the final ballot, this could mean he would remain in the role indefinitely. While three individuals formally launched campaigns to run against him in the December 2025 FIA presidential election, they were all forced to withdraw before the vote due to a strict technicality in the FIA nomination rules.
This situation has already been heavily criticised to the point where Tim Mayer called his leadership a “reign of terror”. He was a former FIA candidate who wished to challenge Sualem in the most recent election. He argued that term limits are not a minor administrative detail but a fundamental governance safeguard. Mayer stated that term limits exist to prevent the concentration of power, ensure leadership renewal, and maintain accountability within organisations.
The reason these candidates were unable to stand against Sulayem was a rule requiring presidential candidates to submit a list of vice-presidents drawn from the FIA global region. A specific issue arose because only one candidate from South America, Brazilian Fabiana Ecclestone, was available on the published list. She was already part of Ben Sulayem’s own team. They made it impossible for anyone to run because they could not nominate the required slate of vice presidents, as no one was available. Importantly, this rule existed before Ben Sulayem became president, but its impact has become more controversial under his leadership.
This proposal will be discussed and voted on at the FIA General Assembly next month, where it is widely expected to pass among member organisations. Which I feel will negatively impact the sport, remove democracy and officiating, and suggest that corruption would win; no one should have such power for such an indefinite period of time.
If this governance structure changes, it will affect not only Formula 1 but also the organisation that oversees global motorsports and many other racing disciplines.
An FIA spokesperson confirmed that the proposal has been formally put forward and explained the reasoning behind it.
They stated that the intention is to establish a “consistent approach to tenure across all FIA bodies,” similar to rules already applied to other FIA governance structures, such as the World Councils and the FIA Senate.
The spokesperson also emphasised that the proposal must still be approved by both the FIA World Council and the General Assembly before becoming official policy.
They added that FIA governing bodies retain full authority to democratically elect their officeholders, suggesting that elections would still occur even if term limits are removed. However, given that in the last election no one was able to stand and run against him for one rule or another, it does not exactly feel democratic to hold elections with only one valid candidate, or with no other opposition.
The current term limit applies not only to the presidency but also to other roles, including the president of the anti-doping committee, the head of the F1 cost-cap committee, and various other governance and regulatory positions within the FIA structure. All of these are powerful and impactful roles, and the introduction of term limits was widely seen as a governance reform aimed at preventing long-term concentration of power within the organisation.
When asked by BBC Sport why term limits were being removed for all FIA positions rather than being expanded or standardised more broadly, the FIA was unable to provide a specific, detailed explanation.
However, an FIA spokesperson referenced external examples, including the NFL in the United States. They cited Roger Goodell, who has served as NFL commissioner since 2006, and argued that his leadership had helped transform the league into a global sporting brand with strong governance outcomes.
This comparison was presented as justification for allowing longer or indefinite leadership terms in major sporting organisations.
This is not the only change they are making; they have also circulated additional changes to their election system, meaning stricter requirements for future presidential candidates. Which seems to me like they are making it impossible for anyone to go against the current president, and the rules seem strict enough if no one else was legitimately able to compete against him in the most recent election. One of the new rules requires candidates to demonstrate “sufficient experience within an FIA member or an FIA body” before they are eligible to run for president.
Another change would significantly extend the deadline for submitting election documentation. Candidates would now need to submit their full list of supporting vice-presidents 100 days before the election, compared to the previous requirement of 49 days. These changes would make it more difficult for potential challengers to organise campaigns or assemble required nomination structures within the election timeframe. While they are not stripping people of the right to hold a democratic election, they seem to be making it impossible for people to stand against the current authority.
The controversy does not stop there. One of the prospective candidates who was unable to challenge the current president's rule is pursuing legal action in French courts against the FIA, challenging the fairness and structure of the FIA’s election process, particularly the requirements that restrict who can stand for president. This legal challenge forms part of a broader debate about transparency, governance, and democratic access within the FIA’s leadership structure.
The proposed removal of term limits, combined with stricter candidate requirements, has intensified debate about governance within the FIA.
Supporters of the proposal argue that it creates consistency across FIA bodies and aligns leadership structures with other global sports organisations that allow long-serving executives.
Critics argue it reduces accountability, weakens democratic turnover, and risks concentrating long-term power in the hands of a single individual.
The upcoming FIA General Assembly vote is therefore expected to be highly significant in determining the future governance structure of global motorsport.
Add comment
Comments