Recently, Formula 1’s governing body, the FIA, and all 11 teams competing in the championship agreed and signed the latest version of the Concorde Agreement, the foundational regulatory and commercial framework that dictates how the sport is run for the next several seasons. This update comes amid controversy around some stewarding decisions that occurred during the 2025 season — most notably the penalties involving drivers such as Oscar Piastri and Carlos Sainz that triggered widespread debate among teams, drivers and fans alike.
The Concorde Agreement is central to Formula 1. It isn’t just a bureaucratic formality; it outlines how revenue is shared, how sporting and technical regulations are applied, and how the governance structure of the sport operates. The latest version of this agreement — covering the 2026 season and beyond — introduces changes aimed at addressing concerns around the consistency and professionalism of race officiating.
One of the key potential reforms highlighted in the Concorde Agreement is the move toward employing permanent, professional race stewards at every Grand Prix weekend. Currently, stewards are typically appointed on a race-by-race basis and rotate throughout the season. In many cases, local organizers and volunteer officials also play a role in weekend operations. The proposed shift would see a more standardized and consistent team of officials travelling the calendar, reducing variability and potentially the perception of inconsistency in decision-making.
This issue has become particularly prominent after several controversial stewarding decisions in 2025. Among them was Oscar Piastri’s penalty at the Brazilian Grand Prix, where he received a 10-second time penalty for being deemed responsible for causing a collision during a restart situation. That decision proved pivotal in the outcome of the race and, some argue, the championship battle itself — because Piastri ultimately missed out on more points that could have influenced his title bid.
Criticism of that penalty came from across the paddock. Some, including fellow drivers and pundits, suggested that the punishment was overly harsh and that the incident was, at best, a racing incident rather than an egregious breach of conduct. In fact, voices like Carlos Sainz openly questioned the appropriateness of the penalty and called for a review of stewarding guidelines to avoid similar controversial decisions in the future.
Another high-profile moment came earlier in the season with Carlos Sainz himself involved in a separate penalty situation at the Dutch Grand Prix. These back-to-back moments contributed to a broader perception, especially among supporters and drivers, that stewarding decisions were inconsistent or unjust, further fueling calls for structural change within how officials are selected and how guidelines are interpreted.
To address these kinds of concerns, the updated Concorde Agreement suggests a long-term commitment by both the FIA and the teams to invest more in stewarding, marshaling and other governance structures — financially and operationally. Under this new framework, teams and Formula One Management (FOM) will be contributing more funds to the FIA, with the intention that these resources be used to professionalize and strengthen race weekend officiating led by experienced, permanent stewards.
FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem, newly re-elected and leading the discussions, emphasised that the changes are designed to help modernise the sport’s regulatory, technological and operational capabilities. The idea behind having professional stewards is not to impose a top-down authoritarian structure, but to foster greater clarity, consistency and trust in how race governance works, which — in theory — should lead to decisions that are better understood and accepted by teams, drivers and spectators alike.
The broader context here is that Formula 1 has been experiencing increasing scrutiny over officiating decisions. In recent seasons, stewards have handed down various penalties — ranging from fines and time penalties to even disqualification — in situations that have occasionally confused participants and followers of the sport. For instance, beyond the Brazilian GP incident, other penalties such as time penalties for pre-start movement or safety car breaches have sparked similar debate about clarity and punishment consistency.
A key part of the debate revolves around the balance between steward discretion and strict application of rules. On the one hand, having rigid guidelines limits flexibility but promotes fairness. On the other hand, too much discretion without consistent standards can lead to varying interpretations from one race to the next. The move towards a stable stewarding panel seeks to strike a better balance by institutionalizing accumulated experience and harmonizing decisions across the season rather than depending on rotating officials.
It’s worth noting that the Concorde Agreement changes will not retroactively alter past decisions — in other words, penalties already served or points lost in 2025 cannot be undone by these updates. But the revisions signal a future approach that may reduce the chances of controversial rulings influencing races and championships as they have this year.
Supporters of these changes argue that professionalisation of stewarding will bring benefits beyond consistency: experienced officials can better interpret nuanced technical and sporting regulations, effectively manage complex race situations and communicate rulings in ways that are clearer and more transparent to teams and the public. Over time, a more stable officiating environment could also reduce friction among teams and drivers, fostering greater respect for decisions.
Critics, however, might say these reforms are reactive and overdue — prompting the question of whether the sport’s governance should have anticipated these issues rather than responding after controversy. Many fans and analysts believe that some decisions in 2025, including Piastri’s penalty at Interlagos, may have had real-world consequences on the championship battle. Supporters of that view feel that while the Concorde Agreement changes are positive, they may be “too little, too late” to fully address the fallout of this season’s disputed rulings.
In summary, the FIA and Formula 1’s updated governance agreement represents a meaningful effort to tackle long-standing concerns about stewarding consistency and professionalism. By committing to permanent, professional race stewards and enhanced investment in governance structures, the sport aims to make officiating more reliable and authoritative — helping ensure that controversial decisions like Oscar Piastri’s penalty at the Brazilian Grand Prix become less common in future seasons.
In an organization as refined and revered as Formula One, to not have full time, paid staff to make such judgements is irresponsible. I’m sure, just like many other appointments like this, politics plays a large part of judge selection.