Mohammed Ben Sulayem has placed FIA governance back under the spotlight after proposing the removal of the current presidential term limit. Under the existing statutes, an FIA president can serve a maximum of three four-year terms, creating a 12-year ceiling for the role.

The proposal would delete that limit, allowing a sitting president to continue seeking re-election beyond the current cap. For Ben Sulayem, who first took office in December 2021 and was re-elected unopposed in 2025, the move would not immediately extend his mandate by itself. But it would open the door to a longer stay at the head of the FIA if members continue to support him in future elections.

A governance question, not just a political one

The debate is bigger than one individual. Term limits are designed to encourage renewal, prevent the concentration of power and keep leadership accountable. Removing them would give FIA members more freedom to keep a president in office, but it would also reduce one of the clearest structural safeguards built into the current system.

That tension explains why the proposal is likely to attract scrutiny. Supporters may argue that continuity can be valuable in a complex international federation that oversees Formula 1, the World Rally Championship, Formula E and many other categories. Critics, however, are likely to see the change as another sign that power inside the FIA is becoming increasingly centralised.

“Term limits are not merely administrative details; they shape how power renews itself inside a global sporting institution.” Editorial analysis

Why the timing matters

The proposal arrives after a controversial FIA election cycle. Ben Sulayem was re-elected unopposed in December 2025 after potential rivals were unable to satisfy candidacy requirements linked to the nomination of vice-presidential candidates across FIA regions.

That process was already the subject of criticism from would-be challengers and governance observers. Former FIA steward Tim Mayer and Swiss-French racer Laura Villars were among those unable to make the final ballot, while Villars later pursued legal action over the electoral process.

Against that background, removing term limits will inevitably be read through the wider lens of FIA accountability. Even if the proposal passes through the correct channels, the optics are delicate: the sitting president is asking members to remove the rule that currently sets the maximum duration of his own office.

The FIA’s argument for consistency

The FIA’s position is that the proposal aims to align tenure rules across the organisation’s elected structures. According to comments reported by BBC Sport and Autosport, the governing body says the change would establish a more consistent approach with other FIA bodies while preserving the authority of members to elect officeholders democratically.

That distinction will be central to the debate. Removing a limit does not remove elections. But elections without term limits place more weight on the competitiveness of the electoral system itself. If challengers struggle to qualify for the ballot, the absence of a maximum term becomes more politically sensitive.

A symbolic moment for motorsport leadership

The FIA presidency has historically carried enormous influence over motorsport’s direction, regulation and political balance. Jean Todt, Ben Sulayem’s predecessor, served 12 years before stepping down. Max Mosley, before him, led the FIA for 16 years.

That history makes the current proposal more than a technical amendment. It touches on a fundamental question: should global motorsport prioritise leadership renewal through fixed limits, or leave continuity entirely in the hands of member votes?

For Formula 1 fans, the change may sound distant from the drama of qualifying laps and race strategy. But governance decisions shape the rules, the calendar, the cost-cap environment, the disciplinary system and the sport’s long-term direction. In that sense, this is a paddock story with boardroom roots — less noisy than a radio message, but potentially far more consequential.

What happens next?

The proposed statute change is expected to be discussed and voted on at the FIA’s next General Assembly. If approved, it would mark a significant shift in how the federation defines presidential tenure and would likely intensify the debate over transparency, accountability and democratic competition inside the governing body.

For Ben Sulayem, the proposal may be presented as institutional consistency. For critics, it will be viewed as a test of whether the FIA is strengthening its democracy or loosening one of the limits designed to protect it.