By Kerri Cebula, J.D.
Team orders in Formula 1 have a wide and varied history. One of the earliest incidents of team orders occurred in 1951. Back then, drivers could switch cars with their teammates to earn half points. In the 1951 French Grand Prix, Alfa Romeo driver Luigi Fagioli was forced to swap with teammate Juan Manuel Fangio. Fangio goes one to win the race and the first of his four World Championships; Fagioli retires from racing at the end of the race.[1] The most famous example occurred in the 2002 Austrian Grand Prix. Race leader Rubens Barrichello of Ferrari was ordered to let teammate Michael Schumacher pass on the last turn of the final lap to ensure that Schumacher earned enough World Championship points. Schumacher and Ferrari were met on the podium with jeers and boos from the fans. Ferrari was fined one million dollars, not for issuing team orders, but for violating the regulations on the podium ceremony.[2] It worked for Ferrari as Schumacher went on to win the World Championship.[3]
Team orders continue to play an outsized role in Formula 1, particularly during the current (2024) season. McLaren came into the season with two stated goals: winning the Constructor’s Championship and one of their drivers, either Lando Norris or Oscar Piastri, winning the World Driver’s Championship. This led to a season-long discussion on team orders and at least three times (and possibly four) when team orders were issued: the Australian and Hungarian Gran Prix and the Sprint Race in Brazil (the Qatar Sprint Race was the possible).[4] And there was one notable time, the Italian Grand Prix, when team orders were not issued, possibly costing McLaren the win.[5] While Red Bull’s Max Verstappen has already won the World Driver’s Championship, as of the writing of this article, the Constructor’s Championship has not.
Team orders in Formula 1 took on a new significance in June 2019. Italy became the sixth country to ratify the Council of Europe’s Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions (the Macolin Convention or the Convention); its ratification came into force on October 1, 2019.[6] Belgium joined Italy in ratifying the Convention in July 2024; its ratification came into force on November 1, 2024.[7] This matters as both Italy and Belgium host Formula 1 Grand Prix.
Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions
Possible issues surrounding team orders come when using the Convention’s definition of manipulation of competition. It defines manipulation of sports competition as “an intentional arrangement, act or omission aimed at an improper alteration of the result or course of a sports competition in order to remove all or part of the unpredictable nature of that aforementioned sports competition with a view to obtaining an undue advantage for oneself or others.”[8]
The Explanatory Report to the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, which does not constitute an authoritative interpretation of the text, but instead helps to provide understanding, breaks down the definition of manipulation of competitions into three distinct words: improper, intentional, and undue advantage.[9] Improper refers to an act which infringes on the regulations of the sports competition and intentional means that the act improperly influences the results of a sport competition.[10] Finally, an undue advantage refers to the objective of the act; does one gain financially from the act or even simply the glory of winning.[11]
Does Formula 1 Have a (Potential) Problem?
Under the definition of manipulation of competition in the Macolin Convention, team orders could be considered to be a manipulation of competition, and a plain reading for the definition backs that up. But the key is in the three words: improper, intentional, and undue advantage.
Improper
An act that violates the sport’s regulations is considered an improper manipulation of competition. The events of the 2002 Austrian Grand Prix led the International Automobile Federation (FIA), Formula 1’s governing body, to ban “team orders which interfere with a race result…”[12] This ban did not matter as teams became more creative in issuing team orders. In the 2010 German Grand Prix, Ferrari driver Felipe Massa was leading the race when the following came over his team radio: “Okay, so Fernando is faster than you. Can you confirm you understood the message?”[13] Massa confirmed by slowing down and allowing teammate Fernando Alonso to take the lead and win the race. Alonso was in a battle with Vettel, then driving for Red Bull, for the World Championship and needed the points. Ferrari was fined $100,000 and Alonso ended up losing the championship by four points but beat the third place driver, Red Bull’s Mark Weber, by ten points.[14] Formula 1 removed the ban on team orders in 2011, but warned teams that they could still be punished for bringing the sport into disrepute under the FIA’s International Sporting Code.[15] No team has been punished for issuing team orders since the ban was lifted. Instead, team orders are openly discussed by the teams, the media, and the fans.[16] If the act is neither explicitly against the regulations of the sport nor punished for implicitly violating the rules, and in reality is celebrated by those involved in the sport, is the act improper?
Intentional
An intentional act is one that improperly influences the results of a sports competition. An attempt to influence the results is enough under the Macolin Convention. McLaren’s team orders in the Australian and Hungarian Grand Prix and the Brazil Sprint Race which ordered one driver (Piastri in Australia and Brazil, Norris in Hungary) to let the other pass. These orders were an intentional act that influenced the results of the race. But was it improper?
An act may look like an influence from the outside, but it may not be. The end of the Qatar Spring Race is one such instance. Norris led most of the race, but allowed Piastri to pass for the win at the end of the race. There were no outward discussions or team orders, with Norris stating after the race it was pay back for the sprint race in Brazil.[17]
Undue Advantage
Finally, do team orders allow one person or one team to gain an advantage? One type of undue advantage that a person or a team can gain is financial gain. And this is where Formula 1’s unique system comes into play. Under Formula 1’s system, there is no prize money for winning the World Driver’s Championship. All money comes from the Constructor’s (team) Championship. The points each constructor earns during a race is dependent on the results of its two drivers added together. In the 2024 Australian Grand Prix, McLaren earned 27 points (18 from Norris, 12 from Piastri), in Hungary, McLaren earned 43 points (25 from Piastri and 18 from Norris), and in Brazil McLaren earned 15 points (8 from Norris, 7 from Piastri). But, if the drivers had remained in their original places, McLaren would have earned the same number of points. There will be no financial gain for McLaren for one driver finishing one in front of the other, even if they win the Constructor’s Championship. Many of the team orders issued by Formula 1 teams work in the same way; the team still earns the same number of points.
A second type of undue advantage is the glory of winning the event. Winning is the goal of participating in competitive sports and teams and athletes do what they can to ensure they win by employing certain strategies and tactics.
Strategy and Tactics vs. Manipulation of Competition
Strategy and tactics are an integral part of sports. Strategy is defined by the Cambridge English Dictionary as “[a] detailed plan for achieving success in situations such as…sports, or the skill of planning for such situations”[18] and tactic is defined as “[a] planned way of doing something.”[19] An argument can be made that what are referred to as team orders are in reality strategy and tactics.
However, this argument hinges on “improper” influence. In the 2007 Monaco Grand Prix, while the team order ban was still in place, the Vodafone McLaren Mercedes team was accursed of using team orders to ensure that Alonso finished in front of teammate Hamilton. The FIA cleared the team of using team orders, stating that the team had used strategy was a sound tactic in Monaco.[20] It is unlikely that the FIA would begin to punish teams for swapping their drivers around during a race.
Conclusion
So, are team orders actually a violation of the Macolin Convention? Or are they strategy and tactics. Perhaps Ron Dennis, then Team Principal of McLaren, put it best: “[t]eam strategy is what you bring to bear to win a Grand Prix. Team orders are what you bring to bear to manipulate a Grand Prix.”[21]
Cebula is an Associate Professor of Sport Management at Kutztown University of Pennsylvania.
[1] Six times team orders decided a race. Planet F1 (Oct. 3, 2018, 1:00 pm), https://www.planetf1.com/features/six-times-team-orders-decided-a-race
[2] Salomeja Zaksaite, Karolis Radusevicius, Manipulation of Competitions in Formula 1: Where Policy Ends and Cheating Begins. 16 Int. Sport Law J. 240.
[3] Supra, note 1.
[4] See Filip Cleeren, Piastri: McLaren team orders ‘completely fair’ in F1 Australia GP, Autosport (March 24, 2024, 11:04 am) https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/piastri-mclaren-team-orders-completely-fair-in-f1-australia-gp/10591156/; Jonathan Noble, Piastri: McLaren did ‘right thing’ team orders switch, Autosport (July 21, 2024, 11:23 am) https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/piastri-mclaren-did-right-thing-with-team-orders-switch/10637282/; Alex Kalinauckas, F1 Brazilian GP: Norris wins sprint after McLaren team orders – Verstappen fourth with penalty, Autosport (Nov. 2, 2024 at 12:45 pm) https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1-brazilian-gp-sprint-race-report/10669681/
[5] Has McLaren left it too late for team orders? Our F1 writers have their say, Autosport (Sept 2, 2024 at 8:59 am) https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/has-mclaren-left-it-too-late-for-team-orders-our-f1-writers-have-their-say/10650641/
[6] Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 215, Council of Europe, https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=215
[7] Id.
[8] Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions. Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 215.
[9] Explanatory Report to the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions. Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 215.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Federation Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA), 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations, Article 17.07.18.
[13] Supra, note 1.
[14] Id.
[15] FIA removes ban on team orders from Formula One regulations, The Guardian (Dec. 10, 2010, 11:43 am) https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/dec/10/fia-removes-f1-team-orders-ban
[16] See Mark Mann-Bryans, Wolff: time for McLaren to make call on team orders. Autosport (Sept 2, 2024, 6:23 am) https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/wolff-time-for-mclaren-to-make-tough-call-on-team-orders/10650528/; Alex Kalinauckas, ‘It would’ve ben tempting’- F1 drivers weigh in on McLaren team order row, Autosport (Jul. 25, 2024, 11:02 am) https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/it-wouldve-been-tempting-f1-drivers-weigh-in-on-mclarens-team-order-row/10638655/
[17] Jonathan Noble, Norris had decided on sprint race sacrifice at Brazilian GP, Autosport (Nov. 30, 2024, 10:15 am) https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/norris-had-decided-on-sprint-race-sacrifice-at-brazilian-gp/10677933/
[18] Strategy, Cambridge English Dictionary Online, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/strategy (last visited December 6, 2024).
[19] Tactic. Cambridge English Dictionary Online, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/tactic (last visited December 6, 2024).
[20] Alan Henry, McLaren cleared over Monaco team orders that never were. The Guardian (May 30, 2007, 7:07 pm) https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/may/31/motorsports.sport
[21] Jonathan Noble, McLaren team orders under investigation, Autosport (May 28, 2007, 7:53 am) https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/mclaren-team-orders-under-investigation-4410949/4410949/
