The case began when the possibility was published in the media, in particular in the magazine BusinessF1, that Toto Wolff, on behalf of Mercedes F1 – of which he is a director and co-owner – had received confidential information from FOM (Formula One Management), owner of the commercial F1 rights) that could give the team an advantageous position by exploiting or manipulating this information.

According to the publication, the information may have been passed on to Toto Wolff by the Austrian’s wife, Susie Wolff, as she is the managing director of the F1 Academy – the FOM institution that aims to propel young female participants into the top ranks of motorsport to transport .

The matter went beyond a mere media rumor when the FIA ​​​​announced on Tuesday afternoon (May 12th), upset with the Wolffs, that the disciplinary committee had found possible unfair competition through the sharing of confidential information between a Formula 1 team boss and one unnamed The man mentioned examines the FOM member.

In short, the FIA ​​​​announced that it is investigating whether Suzy Wolff passed on information about FOM’s activities that FOM did not want to reach the teams and, conversely, also information from the internal deliberations of the sport’s ten teams that FOM in particular could have found useful.

The FIA ​​​​and its president Mohamed bin Sulayem said the disciplinary committee’s investigation was launched on the basis of the relevant publications, but behind the scenes, members of the association leaked information that the investigation was carried out by some of the sport’s teams This sport was requested in the investigation into unfair competition.

But all nine of the sport’s other teams quickly publicly stated that none of them had been involved in a relevant complaint to the FIA. Quite the opposite: The nine groups tried together to defend Susie Wolff, and all made an identical statement on Wednesday afternoon (June 12).

This announcement, with the necessary changes in each team’s name and other formal points, states: “We can confirm that we have not lodged a complaint with the FIA ​​regarding the allegation about information of a confidential nature between a dManager orgroup her F1 and a FOM employee. We are happy and proud to support the F1 Academy Rector Your advisor through our commitment to sponsor a participant with our colors from next season.”

Even Red Bull director Christian Horner, who has had a heated argument with Toto Wolff for a long time, confirmed that his team had not had any complaints about the matter. Speaking to British broadcaster Sky Sports, Horner said: “Look, we have a bitter rivalry on the track, but we have not filed an official complaint against Suzy, Toto or… Mercedes at FIA.

In fact, Red Bull is the team that has been most involved in the F1 Academy since its inception, so much so that we will field three cars alongside the two Red Bull-owned teams. We work closely with Suzy, who is doing great work in the F1 Academy. So, like everyone else, we were quite surprised by last night’s announcement. But it was certainly not initiated or demanded by Red Bull.

The FIA’s concerted “emptying” of teams now puts the federation in the difficult position of having to explain what gave rise to its disciplinary committee’s investigation into the matter. However, as of Wednesday afternoon (June 12), Mercedes had not received any official information from the FIA ​​on this topic.

Given this development, and in particular the lack of direct communication between the FIA ​​and Mercedes (which, given the seriousness of the allegations and the sensitivity of the matter, constitutes a serious offense), questions are legitimately raised about the interpretation of this paradoxical situation that poisons the atmosphere of this microcosm.

It is noted that the important decisions of Formula 1 are taken by the F1 Committee, which consists of 30 members: the 10 teams, 10 representatives of the FIA ​​and 10 representatives of the FOM. Leaking confidential information can promote democracy in decision-making and potentially critical decisions that have not yet been disclosed.

What if the affairs of the sprint races, the censorship of the drivers, the acceptance or non-acceptance of Andretti as the sport’s 11th team were simple disputes between Mohammed ben Sulaghem and FOM, that is, the American Liberty Media that controls FOM? A possible competition misconduct scandal could be the first act of a new political “war” in sport.