Why Derek Warwick’s suspension points to a deeper issue for the FIA

The FIA took the unusual step of suspending one of its stewards during the course of the Canadian Grand Prix weekend.

Midway through the weekend at the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, the FIA issued an unusual statement as the governing body confirmed it had suspended driver steward Derek Warwick with immediate effect.

What did Derek Warwick do to warrant the FIA’s suspension?

The 70-year-old is a veteran FIA steward and was initially named on the five-steward panel for the Canadian Grand Prix.

But, following the paperwork issued during the first practice session in Montreal, Warwick’s name disappeared and, in his place, Enrique Bernoldi’s name appeared as the replacement driver steward.

In a statement, the FIA said: “Following recent unauthorised media comments, the FIA has taken the decision to suspend Derek Warwick from his duties as driver steward for this weekend’s Canadian Grand Prix.

“He will be replaced by Enrique Bernoldi, who will be officiating from the Remote Operations Centre in Geneva for the remainder of the event.

“After discussion, Derek acknowledges that his comments were ill-advised in his role as an FIA steward and has apologised. Derek will resume his duties as a steward in the forthcoming Austrian Grand Prix.”

It’s the second time in a few months that an FIA steward has made headlines for such an issue, with former F1 driver and Sky F1 fan favourite Johnny Herbert being dropped by the governing body over the winter due to his punditry work being “incompatible” with his work as a steward.

Why can’t FIA stewards carry out interviews?

At surface level, Warwick’s transgression might appear to be inconsequential, and that the FIA is being draconian in its hardline stance regarding the stewards giving interviews.

After all, the ability to explain the logic and reasoning behind the decision-making process could be viewed as an attempt to be transparent and head off any possible conjecture; it could be interpreted as merely an addendum to what the stewards have put out via their own official FIA documentation.

The issue is the choice of medium, and this is where the “unauthorised” part of the transgression comes into play.

Over the past 18 months to two years, leading F1 figures such as Herbert, Jacques Villeneuve, Rubens Barrichello, Juan Pablo Montoya, and Mark Blundell have taken to ‘selling’ their opinions via the medium of casino-backed punditry interviews.

Traditionally, punditry interviews were simply a case of establishing contact and building a relationship with a publication or journalist but, more recently, press agencies have taken to paying leading F1 names to speak to them, carry out a punditry interview, and then distribute these interviews to publications with the aim of providing spicy quotes in exchange for linkbacks to their clients, ie. the casino.

It can certainly be a lucrative exercise for those who are approached, with the figures suggested to PlanetF1.com seeing the most prominent names offered four-figure sums per interview – easy work if you can get it!

It’s perhaps unsurprising then, that the likes of Herbert, who came under fire towards the end of last year for expressing his opinions via such a medium might be reluctant to give up this line of work, particularly as Sky F1 had opted to move on from the British driver’s services as a pundit.

The issue for Herbert was that combining this work as a steward – a key decision-maker for on-track matters – in itself represented a conflict of interest.

With the best intentions and all the integrity in the world – and no one would accuse Herbert of not having both – the ability for a steward to, essentially, shape and mould the drama on Sunday and, thus, create their own headlines and news cycle for during the week… one can see why that might be problematic in the eyes of the FIA.

With Herbert put on the spot to choose between the prestige of being an FIA steward (a position which only repays expenses), or being paid a decent wedge just to share his opinions, it’s completely understandable why anyone would go for the option that pays the bills.

FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem explained that Herbert’s media duties had made his place in the stewards’ room untenable.

“Johnny was a very good commissioner, but there was a conflict of interest and he knows that,” Ben Sulayem said.

“You can’t be a journalist in a big company and express your point of view and then play the commissioner, who is a referee. You [might] say: ‘My best case scenario is that so-and-so wins.’

“And what if that driver you prefer has another driver in first or second place? How do you make your judgment?

“He understood [the decision] and he thanked the FIA [for the opportunity] and we thanked him for what he did.”

For Warwick, the opportunity to speak out on the decision-making process he was part of during the Spanish Grand Prix came after an approach from one of these press agencies.

Being interviewed, in itself, is not something the FIA prevents the stewards from doing. But the stewards are given guidelines on what they can and can’t talk about. While the stewards can talk about the process of stewarding, they are not permitted to discuss or offer an opinion on specific incidents or decisions.

They are also expected to remain neutral when speaking about current drivers on the grid.

More on the FIA and F1’s governance

👉 FIA explained: What does it stand for and how does it govern F1?

👉 F1’s penalty system explained: How does a driver pick up a penalty from the FIA?

Speaking about Verstappen’s contentious late-race incident with George Russell in Barcelona, Warwick said, “I think everyone has to realise that if you are a driver who is used to winning like Max, it is very difficult when things go against you in a race that on paper, with three stops, looks like you could win.

“And we all know he’s a winner.

“Should he have done what he did, in Turn 5 with George Russell? Absolutely not. Did he get a penalty for that? Yes.

“Sebastian Vettel was once given a 10-second drive-through penalty in Baku after an incident with Lewis Hamilton [in 2017], but he deliberately drove into Lewis.

“Whereas if you watch this video, it seems to me that although he dove in, he then did turn away from George, but momentum pushed him against George.

“It is absolutely wrong, and the FIA was right to give him a penalty.

“I think many people would say he should have been given a suspension as an example to young karters, and they are probably right, but I think the penalty was perfect.”

Warwick also suggested that Lewis Hamilton “deserves” an eighth world title, that Yuki Tsunoda has been a “disaster” for Red Bull, and that a “mistake” had been made by the Milton Keynes-based squad in dropping Sergio Perez after 2024.

The guidelines for what the stewards can and can’t talk about are outlined in documentation all stewards receive upon confirmation of their assignment, and these guidelines have not significantly changed since last year, suggesting that Herbert, in particular, was given quite a lot of leeway as his two roles overlapped in the latter stages of 2024.

While Herbert chose to pursue punditry this season, Warwick appears to have gone the other way and has decided he wishes to remain a steward. He will be reinstated as the driver steward for next weekend’s Austrian Grand Prix, and is understood to have turned down an approach from a press agency to carry out a casino-backed interview to discuss his suspension from the Canadian round.

Of course, with lucrative sums available as a potential income stream for any F1 figures, the FIA has sought to head off any hints that its stewards could be influenced in their decision-making via the creation of their own headlines, and suspended Warwick – an otherwise impeccable and steadfast servant of motorsport – to make this point clear.

It’s to his credit that he has recognised the potential issue and has sought to clear up the matter, but the issue still remains for the FIA that not every steward – a voluntary position, remember – might not be able to resist the allure of getting good money for their opinions.

Paying the FIA stewards would prevent such scenarios

It’s yet another argument for why the stewards should receive remuneration for their work, rather than just a small allowance to cover their expenses. Earlier this week, PlanetF1.com reported on why the decision-making process of the stewards in the post-race furore in Canada took so long, and, aside from chronological regulation demands, the lack of personnel and resources on the stewarding body is a major factor.

Increasing these resources and providing a stipend or salary to the stewards would head off the possibility of these stewards having their heads turned by way of cash-for-opinions, and ensure the FIA can maintain its status as a governing body beyond reproach when it comes to sporting transparency and zero conflict of interest.

To do this, the FIA would require additional funding from the commercial rights holder, and it’s an idea that McLaren CEO Zak Brown called for earlier this season; Brown even suggesting that the teams could club together to pay the FIA stewards.

“To have part-time, unpaid stewards in a multi-billion-dollar sport where everything is on the line to make the right call… I don’t think we are set up for success by not having full-time stewards,” he said at the Autosport Business Exchange in London.

“As far as paying for the stewards, this will probably be unpopular amongst my fellow teams. I’m happy if McLaren and all the racing teams contribute. It’s so important for the sport. It can’t be that expensive if everybody contributes. It’s not going to break the bank.

“What I don’t know is what’s the relationship contractually between the FIA and Formula 1 as far as what’s the level of expectations on stewarding. But, at the end of the day, the agreement says part-time stewarding is not paid.”

Until the stewards receive a respectable remuneration for their essential work in overseeing every F1 Grand Prix weekend, it shouldn’t be a surprise that not every steward will turn down an easier payday.

Read Next: Why post-race FIA verdicts can take so long – and how huge delays can be fixed