Picture this: the high-octane world of motorsport, where drivers risk everything on the track, but behind the scenes, a governing body might be rigging the rules to favor one leader. That’s the shocking reality Laura Villars is fighting against with a lawsuit that could shake up the FIA’s presidential election. But here’s where it gets controversial – is this a genuine push for fairness, or an unnecessary stir in an already competitive arena? Let’s break it down step by step, exploring the drama unfolding in global racing governance.
Swiss racing driver Laura Villars has taken the bold step of initiating legal proceedings against the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA), the organization that oversees everything from Formula 1 to rally championships, to contest the validity of its election procedures for president. For those new to this, think of the FIA as the international referee for motor sports, setting rules to ensure safety, fairness, and excitement across the globe – but lately, some argue it’s more like a closed club.
Villars had publicly announced her plan to run in the upcoming December election against the current president, Mohammed Ben Sulayem. However, an unusual twist in the FIA’s voting regulations has effectively barred any alternative contenders from participating. To help beginners understand, presidential candidates must assemble a team of potential vice-presidents for sport, drawn from each of the FIA’s six global regions – like Europe, Asia, and the Americas – and these individuals have to come from a pre-approved list for the world motorsport council. The catch? This year’s list includes just a single eligible person from South America, Brazilian Fabiana Ecclestone (wife of former Formula 1 chief Bernie Ecclestone), who happens to be aligned with Ben Sulayem’s faction. This means no other hopeful can field a complete slate, slamming the door on competition.
Her legal filing asks a Paris court to halt the presidential vote, scheduled for December 12, 2025, pending a resolution of the dispute. A court session is scheduled for November 10, giving this issue real urgency.
In an interview with BBC Sport, Villars explained her motivations: ‘This legal move is designed to guarantee that the FIA’s forthcoming presidential election, slated for December 12, 2025, aligns with the organization’s statutes and core democratic values. It’s based on Article 1.3 of the FIA’s rules, which pledges to uphold the utmost in governance, openness, and democracy, and recognizes that as a French-based association in Paris, it’s under French legal oversight. This isn’t an attack or a political ploy – it’s a thoughtful effort to protect integrity, ethics, and diversity in worldwide motorsport leadership. As I’ve said before, I’m not opposing the FIA; I’m defending it. True democracy strengthens the FIA, not endangers it.’
An FIA representative responded to BBC Sport by saying, ‘Given the sensitive nature of these proceedings, the FIA cannot provide commentary on this lawsuit and will refrain from further statements.’
Villars also shared that the court has proposed a mediation session, and she’s committed to attending with an open mind and sincere intent. ‘I’ll approach this mediation with the same composure, receptiveness, and resolve I’ve shown throughout – hopeful that it fosters genuine conversation to build a more progressive, equitable FIA attuned to its members. I’ve reached out twice to the FIA for productive talks on topics like internal democratic processes and clear electoral guidelines, but the replies didn’t meet the mark.’
Her lawyer, Robin Binsard, added weight to the claims: ‘We’ve secured permission for an expedited summons on an hour-by-hour basis, showing the court’s recognition of the significant democratic shortcomings in the FIA, along with multiple breaches of its bylaws and rules that we’ve highlighted.’
Should Villars prevail, the election timeline could be paused while an inquiry examines necessary reforms in the FIA’s administrative structures. If this drags beyond the deadline, Ben Sulayem might retain his position temporarily as a caretaker, limiting his ability to implement major decisions or shifts. Courts could appoint an independent overseer to enforce this neutrality.
At the heart of Villars’ case is how these election protocols seem to obstruct challengers to Ben Sulayem. Fellow aspirant Tim Mayer leveled accusations of ‘opaqueness’ and ‘faux democracy,’ dropping out of the race earlier this month (as detailed in this BBC Sport piece: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/articles/czxnve0kezvo). In rebuttal, an FIA spokesperson defended it as ‘a well-organized and democratic system to promote equality and honesty throughout.’ Yet Mayer confided to BBC Sport this week, ‘As revealed in Austin, Texas, we’ve filed ethical grievances regarding the election, but so far, no acknowledgment from the FIA. This typifies their management and echoes what Laura’s team has faced.’
It’s worth noting that this isn’t the first time the process has drawn scrutiny. In 2013, Briton David Ward secured a court order when challenging Jean Todt, though he ultimately didn’t win the vote. Rally legend Ari Vatanen pursued mediation against Todt in 2009 after Max Mosley’s exit, but also came up short in the end. These past examples underscore a pattern of resistance to change in motorsport’s top echelons, raising eyebrows about whether the system truly embraces open competition or prefers the status quo.
And this is the part most people miss – while some see Villars’ action as a heroic stand for transparency, others might view it as disruptive or even self-serving in a sport already buzzing with rivalries. Could the rules be an innocent oversight, or is there a deliberate design to keep power concentrated? What if reforming them opens the door to more innovation, but at the risk of instability? As motorsport fans, how much democracy should we demand from its guardians?
What are your thoughts? Do you believe Laura Villars is championing a vital cause to democratize the FIA, or is this lawsuit an overstep that could harm the sport’s momentum? Share your opinions in the comments – agree, disagree, or offer a fresh perspective. Let’s spark a conversation about the future of racing governance!