As Formula One cars zip through the shimmering cityscapes and racecourses of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, few realize the darker realities masked by the shining spectacle. Beneath the roar of engines and the glamor of victory lies a disturbing and harsh reality. The roar of engines masked activist repression, the censorship of dissent, and worker exploitation. This, horrifically, is not an isolated case. From Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to Qatar, Formula One’s expansion as a global sporting event celebrated for its innovative spirit, international influence, and resilience, often takes place on the backs of exploited workers and within authoritarian regimes that systematically silence voices calling for reform.

The evolution of Formula One into a global sporting event has caused profit incentives to come before regard for dignity and basic human rights, as they continue to expand into Authoritarian regimes with appalling records on quality of life, equality, and overall human rights. The Formula One that many around the globe adore today began in 1950, but the event’s roots go farther back to the 1890s in France. In the 1890s, the early days of automobile racing, France was the heart of the auto industry. French elites and industrialists saw racing as a way to demonstrate their innovative capabilities to the rest of the region. The first recognized motor race was held in 1894, and companies’ goals were to prove their car could make it past the finish line. This race, the first of its kind, took place over a seventy-eight-mile route and attracted over one hundred competitors, of which only 17 completed.

At the turn of the century, French influence continued to shape racing. The Monaco Grand Prix was heavily influenced by the French auto industry and showcased emerging automotive technology in this iconic race. During the Great Depression in the early thirties, interest and funds for Formula One declined, although some legendary racers such as Tazio Nuvolari continued to make their mark.

However, modern racing truly originated in Europe after the Second World War, when the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile, also known as FIA, established the Formula One world championship in 1950. The first race was held in England and began a decades-long era known as European Racing. Most early Formula One races championed European racers. Iconic races were held at Bonza, Silverstone, and Monza. However, in the late 1960s, Formula One began to be more commercialized and attracted sponsorships from around the world. They began expanding globally starting with the United States Grand Prix in 1959 and the Mexican Grand Prix in 1963. Formula One grew further with the help of television broadcasting and social media’s influence. Today, Formula One is a global phenomenon that attracts an audience from across the globe, with races from Austin to Abu Dhabi.

Hosting a Formula One race is highly desirable and beneficial for the host country and city. The host location is privy to substantial economic incentives, which is particularly appealing to authoritarian regimes. These countries often see Formula One Grand Prix hosting as a means of bolstering their international prestige and standing in global geopolitics. In addition, ‘sports washing' offers them an easy way out and a means to distract the international community from rampant human rights abuses or other domestic issues.

For many countries and cities, the main appeal to hosting is the economic boost generated by tourism and local spending surrounding Formula One events. Studies have revealed that Formula One races can attract tens of thousands of spectators, contributing significantly to local economies. For instance, the United States Grand Prix at the Circuit of the Americas in Austin, Texas has consistently drawn over 250,000 spectators each year, generating over a billion dollars in economic impact since its conception in 2012. The Canadian Grand Prix at Montreal also consistently injects millions of dollars into the local economy annually. These instances, and many more, underscore how critical races can be for the economy, as they spur tourism and expenditures through things like Airbnb fees, car rentals, and more. 

Formula One also benefits, however, as each country typically pays the sporting institution between thirty and fifty million in hosting fees. Like most major corporations, Formula One is incentivized by profit and has empirically prioritized venues willing to pay higher premiums since a substantial portion of F1 revenue comes from these host fees. For instance, numerous countries in the Middle East, including Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, have entered multi-year contracts with the sporting organization. This reflects their interest in hosting these events and Formula One’s desire to gain revenue from these markets. The countries that can afford these high hosting fees are oftentimes authoritarian regimes with state finances and thus appear more often on the Formula One calendar.

Not only is Formula One economically inclined to choose authoritarian regimes as host countries but these countries are also particularly drawn to hosting Grand Prix races for the global visibility and benefits it brings. For governments with less favorable international reputations, Formula One events and races serve as strategic tools for reshaping public perception, attracting more foreign investment, and masking repressive domestic policies with the facade of economic equality and development. This phenomenon is referred to as ‘sportswashing,’ and reveals that authoritarian regimes are usually eager to associate themselves with prestigious sporting events to promote a strong and positive national image while simultaneously diverting attention from domestic issues such as inequality and human rights concerns. Sportswashing in Formula One has raised ethical concerns, as numerous Grand Prix races are held in countries with less than optimal human rights records. Despite widespread criticism and ethical concerns, Formula One has nevertheless historically defended these locations and their decisions by arguing that these events promote cultural exchange and economic development in less advanced countries. Their leadership has also emphasized that racing in diverse locations and regions can inspire social progress. It cannot be ignored that these events often occur in Authoritarian countries, and thus these cases ought to be analyzed in greater detail.

The first case study is that of Bahrain. The Bahrain Grand Prix has become a focal point for human rights abuses and political unrest, particularly considering protestors and journalists. During the F1 Grand Prix race in Bahrain in 2012, Bahraini protester Salah Abbas Habib was killed, sparking international outrage and criticism towards Formula One. F1 did not address this abuse and ignored the extralegal killing until 2013, according to several working groups and special rapporteurs in the United Nations and other renowned human rights organizations. In addition, migrant workers in Bahrain faced withheld wages, mass layoffs, and passport confiscation, a common practice to limit workers’ freedom of movement and bargaining power. Instances of ignorance and strategic omission on behalf of Formula One underscore not only the Bahraini government’s willingness to restrict freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly during high-profile international events but also the implicit message that Formula One condones extralegal acts of violence and legitimizes these actions. Formula One, by refusing to condemn these actions, risks silencing critics and aligning the sport with a repressive government rather than upholding its values of integrity and fair play. 

Another region in which rampant human rights abuses have not deterred Formula One investment is that of Qatar and the UAE. In this region, similar to Bahrain, exploitation of migrant labor highlights a deeply troubling trend in labor abuses, particularly surrounding major sporting events such as Formula One Grand Prix races. As a result of the "kafala" system, many migrant workers experience withheld wages, unsafe working conditions, and passport confiscation. This system often results in dangerous conditions, with reports of heat exhaustion and even deaths among workers constructing race infrastructure. In addition, Qatar is known for its extremist and exclusionary stance on homosexuality, and many members of the LGBTQ+ community are forced to hide their identity out of fear of persecution. The sport's association with these countries has, in turn, been criticized by international human rights organizations. Several human rights groups have condemned the exploitation of workers in these countries, and Formula 1's presence is seen as perpetuating and even endorsing those abuses. Human rights advocates around the world have condemned Formula 1 for its complicity in these systemic issues by racing in Qatar and the UAE.

Political repression in Saudi Arabia has become uncovered in the context of the Saudi GP, particularly with the arrest and suppression of activists. Saudi Arabia, a country with a long history of cracking down on political dissent, showed their hand around the Formula One race when numerous activists, journalists, and human rights defenders were arrested for speaking out against the regime. These forms of arrest are common in the authoritarian country of Saudi Arabia. Their treatment of protestors and activists is often harsh, with many enduring extended detention periods without trial and high prison sentences. Repression, unfortunately, has not been confined to Saudi politics alone but extends to areas of everyday life, including women’s rights.

Strict Saudi Arabian policies towards women have drawn international attention and scathing critiques, as the country ranks among the lowest in the world for female participation and gender parity in sports. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women highlighted these disparities, noting the shockingly low levels of recreational participation among women in the country along with the institutionalized barriers that prevent women from accessing many public spaces such as sporting arenas. In the midst of this, Formula One’s involvement with Saudi Arabia has been controversial. By hosting a prestigious sporting event in a country with such a clear record of human rights violations, Formula 1 risks condoning and legitimizing radical right-wing policies. In addition, the mere perception of a male-dominated event hosting events in a region known for its sex-based discrimination is damning. 

Although the international sporting organization has made some effort to address gender parity by promoting female involvement in racing through their academy, these gestures feel disconnected, merely symbolic, and minimal in comparison to the harsh reality for Saudi women, where their rights are still severely restricted and access to sports is low. Formula One’s promises of inclusivity and equality seem hollow in the face of the country’s gender and political repression. The sport’s presence in Saudi Arabia has been perceived by many, therefore, as an implicit endorsement of the regime’s repressive actions.  Despite the growing international criticism, Formula 1’s response has been largely noncommittal, offering vague statements about improving inclusivity without concrete actions to address the core issues, a common trend across all three case studies of Formula One and Authoritarian regimes. 

These criticisms highlight a broader dilemma for F1—whether to continue to turn a blind eye to these abuses in favor of financial gain or take a stand in support of the values it claims to uphold. Critics argue that Formula One presence in countries with oppressive regimes signals tacit approval and functionally condones these regimes’ actions, which severely undermines Formula One’s credibility and brand image. By failing to address these human rights atrocities, the organization risks alienating not just its fan base, but its racers as well. However, by embracing policies that advocate for ethical standards and better norm-setting across all international sporting events, Formula One could signal to fans and host countries alike that it will not compromise its core values such as integrity for profit alone.

As a major global institution, Formula One holds a substantial amount of power and influence over fans and the geopolitical climate of perception, which means their decisions regarding the selection of host countries have wide-reaching ethical and policy implications. The conflict between F1's profit motive and human rights is evident in its choice of host countries. The sport has frequently favored states with questionable and problematic human rights records–most notably Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia–because of the financial incentives they offer, as these locations are willing to pay higher premiums and agree to lucrative contracts and sponsorship deals. These profits, however, have monumental ethical costs. Despite Formula One’s drive for financial gain and profits, they could be deterred from continuing their authoritarian streak through stricter regulations and requirements that prioritize human rights and welfare over financial gain in a more ethical framework. Without these policy changes, the sporting institution risks further tarnishing its reputation and credibility as a global sporting institution and a world leader in sports, which could have lasting consequences on its brand and marketability. The organization’s failure to address these issues will continue to undermine its responsibility to uphold human rights and its values of integrity and fair play, putting its social license to operate at risk. Formula One’s social license to operate, more well known as the implicit approval that Formula One receives from the public and overall society to operate based on ethicality and reputation, may come tumbling down if they continue to host events in countries with abominable human rights records. This loss of approval as a result of eroding public trust, will alienate sponsors, reduce revenue over time, and thus affect F1’s ability to operate effectively. Thus, Formula One’s commitment to corporate responsibility demands a more ethical approach in choosing host countries, as the organization’s long-term success is intrinsically tied to its ethical standards and actions.

F1, as one of the most globally recognized and financially profitable sports, operates far beyond the racetrack. Its actions have a real impact, and the influence of Formula One decisions reaches into the political, social, and economic fabric of the nations and regions of the world it chooses to invest in by hosting Grand Prix events. Although they are celebrated for the thrilling competition and wonderful races that celebrate creativity, efficiency, and technological innovation, the organization has faced more and more scrutiny for its association with authoritarian regimes with bad human rights records. Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar– regimes like these have been long critiqued for their backward societal norms, moral hazards, and human rights atrocities. Several nations like these have been hosting Formula One events over the last few years, and they are often criticized for suppressing dissent, limiting freedom of expression, promoting xenophobia, and exploiting their workers. As the international sporting organization seeks to expand its international footprint and maintain a good reputation, numerous potential policy actions could help guide it back to its values.

One critical step to ensuring Formula One does not inadvertently condone or become complicit in human rights violations is implementing a mandatory human rights due diligence process when selecting host countries in the future. This policy should go beyond a superficial review of a nation’s record and Formula One ought to heed advice from human rights organizations from around the world, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations Human Rights Council. These assessments from specialized organizations, in addition to Formula One’s own task force, would focus on key areas such as labor conditions, equality, and unalienable rights such as the freedom of speech and press. This method would work well, as it would produce a more in-depth analysis of the ethics of the host country before committing to contractual agreements. For instance, countries like Bahrain and Qatar have been criticized for their treatment of migrant workers, particularly in the construction of Formula One race tracks and venues, where they go through brutal work conditions only for their wages to be withheld. This policy would enable F1 to take policy actions of their choosing, from forcing reform before commitment or creating safeguards against abuse to refusing to contract with the regime altogether. Transparency would be a critical step for this policy. The findings of these human rights assessments ought to be publicly available to hold both the regime and Formula One accountable. This way, neither can deny or try to cover up the abuses themselves. In addition, making these assessments public would help Formula One align with the growing global demand for corporate accountability, placing pressure on governments to comply with international human rights standards. 

Another possible policy that works hand in hand with the due diligence policy above is the inclusion of binding human rights clauses in all future Formula One contracts with host countries. Establishing binding human rights clauses in contracts would legally obligate host governments to ensure that basic unalienable human rights and equality are being upheld and fully respected during the full contractual period. Rights such as humane and well-paid working conditions, freedom of speech and press, and gender parity would be guaranteed and respected for at least the duration of the contract. These stipulations would offer protection to citizens of the region and shield the international sporting company from any blame. Although some regimes may not want to comply, they likely would due to the sheer size of economic benefit generated as a result of the Grand Prix events. However, there would likely be safeguards put in place to enforce compliance with these clauses. If a government is found to be breaching any of the human rights clauses, it would face a severe penalty. The penalty would likely be a termination of the contract for severe violations or financial penalties for less severe violations of the binding human rights clause. This would not only deter the governments, as they would risk losing a lot of money but also send a clear message to fans and critics around the world that F1 is committed to ensuring that its events do not enable nor condone human rights abuses. Embedding these unbreachable clauses into their Grand Prix and event contracts, Formula One would create a legal framework that binds governments to specific ethical standards. This framework would promote compliance with international human rights laws and help F1 solidify its position as a global leader in sports ethics.

Another possible policy solution is independent monitoring and reporting. Given the potential for these abuses to occur in host countries, especially in authoritarian regimes during high-profile international events, security, and various emergency hotlines ought to exist to ensure human rights are protected during the event. Formula One could form partnerships with nonprofits and third-party organizations on the ground in these regions to monitor conditions and situations during the event more closely in order to prevent any atrocities or unlawful behavior. Social media, an incredibly important reporting tool with an international reach, can also be used to create a broader platform for human rights advocacy, driving social and political pressure on host countries to enact reforms, the exact opposite of ‘sportswashing’. 

Formula One could establish an independent human rights advisory board to provide ongoing guidance on ethical issues regarding the organization’s partnerships and operations around the world. Experts in human rights and international law as well as those who know the conditions in these regimes would likely serve on this board and would be responsible for advising executive decisions on various partnerships, actions, and statements. This board could also review race contracts and make recommendations on whether certain countries meet the high ethical bar needed for a Formula One partnership. This would ensure that partnerships and decisions are well-informed and good for not only F1’s reputation and international standing but also human decency around the world. This board would essentially function as a structured mechanism for making ethical decisions from people without profit incentives, which would transcend commercial interests.

Finally, F1 could establish a financial penalty system for host countries that are found guilty of a human rights violation during an event. These violations, which could range from labor conditions to treatment of protesters, are severe and ought to be met with penalties of an equal magnitude. 

In addition to these thoroughly outlined policy options, Formula One could also participate in collaborative advocacy, create a human rights compliance department, or start a human rights fund for initiatives in host countries, all of which would have the same desired effect. Other organizations may also work to develop a better world for human rights in the international sporting community. One possible solution is the implementation of sanctions on countries with failing human rights standards. Organizations such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization, European Union, or even individual countries could implement statutes that introduce targeted sanctions for countries that fail to meet bare minimum human rights standards when hosting international sporting events. These sanctions could include economic penalties, travel restrictions, the freezing of bank accounts, and higher payments for projects within the host country. For instance, the European Union might choose to restrict tourism marketing funding for nations with exploitative labor practices or for regimes that restrict civil liberties during high-profile international events such as F1 Grand Prix races. These sanctions would create economic disincentives for host countries to violate human rights, appealing to their profit incentive to reduce the amount of human rights atrocities. With consistent application, sanctions could make it financially unviable for countries with less-than-par human rights records to host events by pushing them to implement reforms that align with international human rights standards and norms.

One final policy that could influence public perception and guide sporting organizations is the inclusion of human rights metrics in sporting event rankings and indices. Organizations like the Global Sports Impact Index could include human rights statistics in their database and factor these scores into calculations for overall event rankings. Through integration into widely cited rankings, this approach would not only influence rankings, but also increase the visibility of human rights issues among sports fans, sponsors, and the media. Host countries would then have a clear incentive to improve their rankings by adhering to human rights standards by hosting events in countries with positive human rights records.

Formula One’s expansion into authoritarian regimes with bad human rights conditions, such as Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, highlights a troubling trend in which the glamor of races often masks severe human rights abuses. By hosting races and events in these countries, Formula One risks enabling ‘sportswashing,’ letting oppressive regimes use the sport’s global reach to present a beautiful image of a developing nation despite ongoing trends of worker exploitation, repression, and restrictions of free speech. To align its ethical standards with its core values, Formula One ought to enforce stricter human rights conditions for host countries, work with human rights organizations, and support local activists. Other international organizations and countries around the world can support this effort and movement towards better human rights standards by sanctioning countries that do not comply and making sure data is available to the public. By holding these regimes accountable, F1 can use its vast global influence for good to promote human rights rather than overlook them.

Works Cited

"16 Rights Groups Raise Bahrain Human Rights Concerns with Formula One." UNI Global Union, 17 Apr. 2013, uniglobalunion.org/news/16-rights-groups-raise-bahrain-human-rights-concerns-with-formula-one.

"Bahrain: F1 Ignores Rights Abuses Ahead of Race." Human Rights Watch, 17 Apr. 2013, https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/17/bahrain-f1-ignores-rights-abuses-ahead-race.

"Careers." Formula 1, Formula One World Championship Ltd., corp.formula1.com/careers/. Accessed 13 Nov. 2024.

"F1 Can Drive Real Change: 'We Are Not Chasing Money.'" The Guardian, 28 Feb. 2023, www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/feb/28/stefano-domenicali-f1-can-drive-real-change-we-are-not-chasing-money.

"Formula 1 Embraces Equity in Motorsport through an All-Women Racing Championship." International Women's Day, www.internationalwomensday.com/Missions/19599/Formula-1-embraces-equity-in-motorsport-through-an-all-women-racing-championship.

"Formula 1 Hosting Fees Worldwide 2023." Statista, 2023, www.statista.com/statistics/1360331/formula-1-hosting-fees/.

"Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, Michel Forst." United Nations, 15 Dec. 2016, www.documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n16/304/68/pdf/n1630468.pdf.

"Rights Groups Letter to F1 CEO Ahead of Bahrain Grand Prix: 20 Years of Sportswashing." OMCT, 17 Mar. 2023, www.omct.org/en/resources/statements/rights-groups-letter-to-f1-ceo-ahead-of-bahrain-grand-prix-20-years-of-sportswashing. Accessed 13 Nov. 2024.

"The History of Formula 1." F1-GrandPrix.com, f1-grandprix.com/history1.html.

"Women in Sports in Saudi Arabia." European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights, www.ecdhr.org/women-in-sports-in-saudi-arabia/.

Adetunji, Jo, Peter Beaumont, and agencies. "Bahrain Protester Dead Ahead of Grand Prix." The Guardian, 21 Apr. 2012, www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/21/bahrain-protester-dead-grand-prix.

Bantock, Jack. "Lewis Hamilton Criticises Qatar's LGBT Rights Record Ahead of Grand Prix." CNN, 20 Nov. 2021, www.cnn.com/2021/11/20/motorsport/lewis-hamilton-qatar-lgbt-rights-scli-intl/index.html#:~:text=The%20Qatar%20Grand%20Prix%20has,people%20cannot%20legally%20change%20gender.

Cholewiński, Ryszard. "The Kafala System: A Conversation with Ryszard Cholewiński." Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 1 Feb. 2023, gjia.georgetown.edu/2023/02/01/the-kafala-system-a-conversation-with-ryszard-cholewinski/.

Doyle, Tom. "F1 Means Big Bucks for Austin Economy, but How Much?" KXAN, 23 Oct. 2023, www.kxan.com/sports/f1-austin/f1-means-big-bucks-for-austin-economy-but-how-much/.

Guy, Jack. "Lewis Hamilton Calls on F1 to Take Stronger Stance on Human Rights." CNN, 27 Nov. 2020, www.cnn.com/2020/11/27/motorsport/lewis-hamilton-f1-human-rights-scli-intl-spt-gbr/index.html.

Holligan, Anna Stewart and Thomas Schlachter. "How Formula One’s Bahrain Grand Prix Faces Scrutiny for Human Rights Issues." CNN, 27 Feb. 2023, www.cnn.com/2023/02/27/motorsport/bahrain-grand-prix-formula-one-spt-intl/index.html.

Kashap, Sharun. “F1 Is Lucrative for the Drivers, but Is It for Everyone?” Telfer Business Journal, 10 Mar. 2023, telferbusinessjournal.ca/journal/f1-is-lucrative-for-the-drivers-but-is-it-for-everyone.

Puckett, Conner. “Formula 1 Brings an Economic Boost to Austin, and Businesses Are Already Planning for 2024.” KVUE, 22 Oct. 2023, www.kvue.com/article/news/local/f1-austin-texas-economic-boost-2024/269-ccc677c4-1c44-4b41-9427-b5394e6614d9.

Rencken, Dieter, and Claire Cottingham. “Five Years since Ecclestone’s Exit: How Liberty Changed the F1 World He Crafted.” RaceFans, 23 Jan. 2022, www.racefans.net/2022/01/23/five-years-since-ecclestones-exit-how-liberty-changed-the-f1-world-he-crafted/.

Richards, Giles. "‘One of the Worst’: Lewis Hamilton Criticises Qatar over Human Rights." The Guardian, 18 Nov. 2021, www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/nov/18/lewis-hamilton-criticises-qatar-human-rights.

Road Racing News. “Where It All Started – The Paris to Rouen Race.” Road Racing News, 3 Dec. 2020, roadracingnews.co.uk/where-it-all-started-the-paris-to-rouen-race/.

Salinas, Sara. “The Multi-Billion Dollar Battle to Host an F1 Race Is Heating Up.” NBC New York, 7 Nov. 2023, www.nbcnewyork.com/news/business/money-report/the-multi-billion-dollar-battle-to-host-an-f1-race-is-heating-up/5971944/.

Zidan, Karim. “Formula 1: Driving Authoritarianism.” Karim Zidan, karimzidan.com/formula-1-driving-authoritarianism/.

‍