Changes to the document have seen motorsport’s global governing body, the FIA, hit the headlines for what has been seen as a harsh crackdown on swearing.
However, before deciding if the addition, specifically Appendix B to the International Sporting Code (ISC) crosses a line in the sand, it’s important to understand what it is and what it isn’t.
The ISC is effectively the document that lays down the foundation for motorsport of all disciplines to take place.
It defines the roles and responsibilities of all involved, be those drivers, promoters, category organisers, and even the governing body and its governance processes.
Each competition formulates its own rules in addition to the ISC, but they cannot override it—if they do, the ISC wins if there is a conflict.
It is an important document, not just at F1 level but for all categories governed by the FIA.
That includes Supercars courtesy of its stature as an International Series.
For 2025, Appendix B has been added to the ISC.
The one-page document includes a table in which five ISC articles are specifically noted with a range of penalties outlined for each.
This table has captured the headlines, as within it are potentially significant monetary fines and even the prospect of a ban from competition.
There are two important elements to note in conjunction with the table.
The first is that it is merely a suggestion, a guideline as the document itself declares, and stewards have the authority and autonomy to ignore it if they see fit.
Secondly, the table (and Appendix B as a whole) introduces nothing new in terms of regulations; the five articles that it quotes already existed as did the ability for the FIA to doll out the suggested punishments.
Appendix B is nothing more than a suggestion to stewards to standardise penalties and iron out inconsistencies.
So why has it garnered so much attention?
Primarily, it has to do with the timing of its introduction, from a few different perspectives.
The simplest is that it follows a season where two high-profile F1 drivers were penalised for swearing in FIA press conferences and a third was stung for using “offensive language” over team radio.
FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem had criticised the use of foul language in the weeks before the penalties were dished out to Max Verstappen and Charles Leclerc for swearing.
As a result, the introduction of Appendix B is seen by some as an extension of the FIA president’s own personal position and an abuse of his power.
But there is a more straightforward reason for the timing of the introduction; the world motorsport season is about to begin, so it is logical to introduce the guidelines now.
Perhaps questions should be raised about how the Appendix was pushed through in time, with suggestions that it was bullied or rushed through, but that is a side issue that misses the point of the effort.
That is because the means by which the Appendix was pushed through does not change its intent, which the FIA has done a poor job of explaining – arguably leading to the current confusion.
In essence, the guidelines mean and do next to nothing and are designed to act as a deterrent and highlight the need for greater respect for officials.
It is commonplace in other sports for players to be penalised for disagreeing with a referee or official with meaningful sporting penalties and even bans in extreme situations.
Football has a card system. If a player accrues enough yellows they are forced to miss a match.
Why should motorsport be any different?
It is not unique and what the FIA is doing is moving to stamp out disrespect across all levels of the sport.
With the upper echelons setting the tone and the example others follow, it is hoped that it filters through the system and the sport, in short order, tidies itself up a bit because it has in some cases got out of hand (and that is not necessarily referring to F1).
This is not about punishing drivers for venting their frustration, it is about respect for officials, rivals, colleagues, and fans.
Legendary Australian cricketer Ian Healy eloquently wrote in a column for SEN only today that respect is seemingly evaporating from sport as youngsters are taught that winning is the only thing that matters.
“So let’s hope that standards in juniors of all sports are high on the compete skill and respect stakes, and fun to go with it. So that this isn’t an influx, that it’s not being tolerated at those younger levels,” Healy wrote.
“There’s too much wonderful tradition in sport that’s always been tolerated to spoil right now by a generation of out-of-control sooks.”
While focused on tennis and cricket, and primarily dealing with the topic of bad sportsmanship from losing players, his comments transcend sporting codes and can also be applied towards officials.
Another concern that has been raised is that the rules are open to abuse and, therefore, there is scope for abuse.
It’s a fair and valid point, but it is one that has always existed and exists in other sports, but without the safety net the motorsport process affords.
Take football, for instance; a foul is typically penalised on the spot by the referee who uses their experience and interpretation of the rules to make a judgement.
It happens in real-time (let’s pretend VAR doesn’t exist), and the game moves on, whether the decision is right or wrong.
In motorsport, an alleged regulation breach is referred to the stewards and investigated in a calm and considered manner – possible because an immediate decision is not necessary to keep the race moving.
So, while the regulations are open to abuse by officials, the reality is officials in every sport can influence the outcome, and motorsport is, therefore, not unique—but it also has the added safety net of a calmer environment in which the decision is made.
But there remains an elephant in the room.
If the intent is to stamp out abuse and dissent, where does one draw the line given multiple sources have specifically pointed out to Speedcafe that team radio is an area of concern.
Ostensibly a private communication channel, it is now used for entertainment purposes on the global broadcast.
Teams have no say in its use or ability to refuse and are thus exposed to potential penalties courtesy of remarks made on a private channel.
There is precedent for penalising radio chatter; Yuki Tsunoda received a €40,000 fine (half suspended) at the Austrian Grand Prix for comments he made on the radio about the Sauber team.
Yet, by the same token, Leclerc had a frustrated, f-bomb-ridden rant in Las Vegas that caught headlines but was not punished.
So where is the line? That’s where the guidelines do fall short.
Formula 1, which produced the global feed, can beep offensive words (there is a delay prior to broadcast), but what if it doesn’t? Where does one draw the line?
Is a private communication channel fair game for potential punishment, in which case should not all radio chatter be subjected to the same rigour, including officials? And if so, who will monitor and police it?
It’s also where the analogy with other sports falls down as players often swear in frustration, just as drivers do at times, but for the most part that goes unheard.
The broader argument the scenario poses is the appropriateness of the television broadcast to have access to team radio and its obligation to censor appropriately.
Knowing all that, it’s difficult to understand the headlines and uproar of the last week.
The rules have not changed, nor has the FIA bestowed any power upon itself.
The introduction of Appendix B is designed to put the sport on notice to clean up its act.
Swearing in an official setting is unnecessary, and grown adults should avoid doing so to set an example for those further down the motorsport ladder.
If they swear in private conversations (including team radio), we have no right to be offended – perhaps if anyone is to be penalised in that instance it should be Formula 1.
At a time when the Concorde Agreements are being negotiated, perhaps that’s a clause that should be added.
