When Flavio Briatore was fired from Formula 1 in 2009 for his role in the notorious “Crashgate” scandal, it seemed as if a clear message had been sent: the sport would not tolerate actions that threatened the safety and integrity of its competitions.
Briatore's orchestration of Nelson Piquet Jr.'s deliberate crash during the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix endangered people's lives and tampered with race results, leading to him being banned indefinitely by the FIA. And yet, here we are in 2024, with Briatore not only back in the ring, but also officially reinstated as Alpine's executive advisor.
This decision to bring Briatore back into the Formula 1 fold raises significant ethical questions about the sport's values and commitment to integrity. The initial ban, although it was later overturned by a French court, left an indelible mark on Briatore's reputation. Despite his constant presence around the racetrack and his ongoing involvement in driver management, his formal return to an official role signals a worrying inconsistency in the ethical standards of the sport.
Contrast this with the treatment received by Red Bull team principal Christian Horner, who faced backlash over accusations of controlling behavior towards a female employee. Although he was exonerated by an independent investigation, Horner's reputation was damaged, and he called on his peers to be transparent and adhere to positive values. The contrast in responses to these two numbers is striking.
When Briatore's return was announced, Alpine team principal Bruno Famine was quick to dismiss concerns about Briatore's past. “I don't really mind about the past,” he said, stressing the potential benefits of Briatore's experience and connections. Famen's perspective, echoed by managers of other teams, suggests a disturbing willingness to overlook serious past misconduct in favor of immediate, perceived gains.
Mercedes' Toto Wolff, Ferrari's Fred Vasseur and STEK's Alessandro Alloni Bravi have emphasized Briatore's talents and contributions to the sport, and appear to ignore the seriousness of his past actions. This unanimous support stands in stark contrast to their previous demands for accountability in the Horner case, highlighting the selective approach to ethical scrutiny.
Formula 1's ethical landscape appears to be increasingly influenced by commercial interests. Since Liberty Media acquired the commercial rights to the sport, the focus has been on expansion and profitability. The Netflix series “Drive to Survive” has greatly boosted the popularity of Formula 1, attracting a diverse global audience. This increase in viewership has translated into increased sponsorship, investment and overall value of the teams and the sport.
It raises the question: Is Liberty Media's apparent indifference to Briatore's past a reflection of a broader strategy where added value trumps ethical considerations? The willingness to turn a blind eye to Briatore's indiscretions may suggest that the sport's moral compass can be easily modified, as long as it adds value.
What does this tell us about the ethical landscape of Formula 1? The sport appears to have a flexible moral compass, influenced by friendships, financial interests and the allure of strategic advantages. When it comes to figures like Briatore, whose relationships and experiences are seen as valuable, past indiscretions are easily forgotten. On the other hand, others, like Horner, face intense scrutiny in cases that have been investigated and clarified through proper channels, despite their seriousness.
Formula 1 has made strides in presenting itself as a sport committed to diversity and positive values, but Briatore's reappointment undermines these efforts. It sends a mixed message to fans and stakeholders about what the sport really stands for. If driver safety and competition integrity can be compromised without lasting consequences, where do we draw the line?
By welcoming Briatore back, Formula 1 risks eroding trust and credibility. Sport must align its actions with its stated values, ensuring that its commitment to integrity is not compromised by suitability or the potential for short-term gain. Only then can it truly adhere to the standards it claims to stand for.
