From Decision to Reaction: What Shapes Online Hostility Around Formula 1 Stewarding?

Stewarding decisions are an essential part of competition, but they can also trigger intense online reactions. A qualitative study from ESBS European Sport Business School is examining why some decisions generate limited disagreement while others escalate into hostility, what intensifies those reactions, and where that hostility is directed.

Inside the Research is UAOA’s Erasmus+ Researcher Interview Series, spotlighting the researchers contributing to the European Union co-funded programme Developing a Pan-European Framework to Combat Online Abuse in Sport. Each edition looks inside one national study to explore the core questions being asked, the emerging evidence and what the findings could mean for the future of sport.

At ESBS European Sport Business School in Spain, Tina Mihajlovic, Lucía Carranza Vázquez and Mara Paola Mulett Hernández are examining how Formula 1 fans respond to decisions made by race stewards and officials, and when disagreement may escalate from legitimate sporting criticism into hostility or abuse.

The pilot study uses semi-structured interviews and a focus group with Formula 1 followers based in Spain, consisting of a diverse range of participants, from motorsport fans to drivers and stewards. The qualitative approach allows the researchers to explore not simply how often negative reactions occur, but how fans interpret decisions, assign responsibility and explain what intensifies their response. 

Where criticism becomes personal

Disagreement with sporting decisions is part of legitimate fan debate. Questioning a penalty, discussing consistency or challenging a decision is not inherently abusive. For the researchers, the distinction is fundamental: personal attacks shift the focus from evaluating the decision to targeting those perceived to be responsible for it.

Stewarding presents a distinctive research context. Officials can directly influence race outcomes while remaining far less publicly visible than drivers and teams. In Formula 1, participants often perceive stewarding decisions as FIA decisions rather than decisions associated with a clearly identifiable individual steward. This raises an important question: where is frustration directed when fans react strongly to a decision but the person behind it is largely invisible?

Participants often describe anger being directed towards the FIA as an institution, rather than towards an individual steward.

In several cases, the hostility may also shift towards the driver involved in the incident, leaving the steward relatively absent from the discussion.

This suggests that hostility around officiating does not necessarily follow a direct line from decision to decision-maker. Instead, reactions may move across the wider ecosystem according to who fans perceive as responsible.

Four dynamics appear to intensify reactions

The interviews identify several factors that appear to shape the intensity of responses.

Fan identification is one of the most prominent. Participants describe stronger emotional reactions when a decision directly affects a driver or team they strongly support, particularly in the immediate aftermath of an incident and before further explanation is available.

Sporting significance also matters. Reactions may intensify when the stakes are higher, such as towards the end of a championship, or when an incident has more serious consequences, including injury. Participants also suggested that an apology from the driver perceived as responsible can help reduce tension.

Perceived fairness can generate strong reactions independently of loyalty. Some participants describe reacting strongly to a decision they consider unjust even without a particular attachment to the drivers involved. This suggests that fan identification alone does not explain the intensity of the response. 

The final factor is speed of message propagation.

Participants recounted that opinions were formed rather quickly through social media, digital sports media, trusted commentators and other public figures, sometimes even before consulting or waiting for the official explanation. By the time additional context or a correction becomes available, the initial interpretation may already have circulated widely and perceived as the correct one.

The research therefore draws attention not only to the decision itself, but also to the information environment in which that decision is interpreted.

Abuse is often described as something “other fans” do

Another consistent pattern concerns how participants position themselves in relation to hostile behaviour.

They rarely describe abuse as something they personally engage in. Instead, they refer to what “people” or “the fans” do, with one participant describing abusive users as “the crazy ones out there.”

This distinction is important methodologically.

The current findings should therefore be understood primarily as evidence of how fans perceive and explain hostile behaviour within the Formula 1 community, rather than as direct accounts of their own abusive conduct.

It may also have implications for prevention. If supporters view abuse as behaviour carried out by a separate group of “abusive fans”, messages addressed directly to that category may have limited resonance with people who do not recognise themselves within it.

Visibility is not driven only by those posting abuse

The research also highlights a less visible part of online conflict: the audience around it.

Some participants describe opening comment sections because confrontation is interesting to observe. They may not post abusive content themselves, but this kind of passive engagement may still increase the visibility and reach of hostile exchanges, without their realisation.

This broadens the focus beyond the individual posting an abusive message. The emerging picture suggests that the visibility of hostile content may be amplified not only by those creating it, but also by users who merely watch or passively engage with online conflict.

For prevention, this means considering the wider dynamics that give hostile content attention and reach.

Understanding the Spanish context

The study is currently centred on Formula 1 followers in Spain. Participants frequently refer to Spanish digital sports media and trusted social media accounts when explaining how they form opinions about stewarding decisions, rather than relying only on official sources.

At the same time, football also provided an important reference point in this study, particularly around debates over the consistency and fairness of refereeing decisions.

Some participants describe southern European fan cultures as more emotionally expressive than northern European audiences. The researchers treat these comments as participant perceptions rather than established cultural differences.

At this stage, the study cannot determine which patterns are specific to Spain and which may also be present in Formula 1 communities elsewhere. 

From evidence to action

The preliminary findings point to several areas that may be relevant for sport organisations.

One is clarity around stewarding decisions. Participants often associate stronger reactions with situations in which they do not understand how or why a decision was made. Their accounts suggest that clearer explanation of the criteria and decision-making process could help reduce misunderstanding.

The interviews also point to the potential role of fan education based on reflection and dialogue. For example, one participant reported that taking part in the interview itself prompted him to reconsider assumptions he had not previously questioned.

Communication may also matter in how prevention messages are framed. Some participants were more receptive to campaigns involving several drivers, including rivals, than to messages centred on a single figure, perceiving the former as a stronger collective signal.

Finally, participants highlighted the role of platforms, including clearer consequences, more consistent enforcement and stronger cooperation between sporting governing bodies and platforms when harmful behaviour occurs.

These observations remain preliminary. They identify possible directions rather than establishing which interventions are most effective.

The next stage of the research will broaden the sample, including more people with professional motorsport experience and, where possible, perspectives beyond Spain. 

Key takeaway

Three emerging observations stand out.

Fans often perceive stewarding decisions as FIA decisions rather than decisions made by identifiable individual officials.

Participants often tend to describe online abuse as something other fans do, rather than behaviour they recognise in themselves.

Hostile content can gain visibility not only through those who create it, but also through those who merely watch and passively engage with online conflict.

Taken together, the findings suggest that reactions to stewarding decisions are shaped by more than disagreement alone. Fan identification, perceived fairness, sporting stakes, the visibility of the decision-maker and the speed at which interpretations circulate all appear relevant to how hostility develops and where it is directed.

About the research

Research title	How Do Online Fans React to Decisions Made by Race Stewards and Officials, and What Factors Influence the Intensity of These Reactions?
Research focus	Fan reactions to Formula 1 stewarding decisions, perceived fairness, responsibility, fan identification and the boundary between legitimate criticism and online abuse
Institution	ESBS European Sport Business School
Country	Spain
Research Language	Spanish
Source	Publication details forthcoming