According to Jogo Hoje’s coverage of the Formula 1 2026 narrative war, ex-driver Juan Pablo Montoya has pushed for a punishment aimed at Max Verstappen after the Dutchman went after the regulation of 2026 in public. And as a sports lawyer would put it, it’s not about feelings in the paddock; it’s about consequences that actually change behaviour.
Montoya’s core thesis is blunt: pilots can have opinions, but when the messaging crosses a line into disrespect for the sport, the FIA should respond with a sanction that bites. If you want the technical debate to stay in the garage and the paddock respect to stay intact, why not attach a real cost to the words?
What Montoya said and why the comments landed
Montoya made his case on the BBC’s Chequered Flag podcast, arguing that Verstappen’s tone undermines the competition’s integrity. The ex-F1 winner framed it like a compliance issue: freedom of expression exists, sure, but it is not a free pass to attack the rulebook as if it’s optional.
His proposed mechanism was the key detail: add seven or eight points to the super license. That suggestion is not random. In sports governance terms, it’s a deterrent designed to turn a verbal swipe into a measurable risk.
Montoya’s warning came with a clear escalation path: if the driver racks up additional penalty points after that, a suspension could follow. That’s the difference between “heated talk” and an enforceable precedent.
Verstappen’s critique of the 2026 regulation
Verstappen has positioned himself as one of the loudest critics of the current direction of F1, and his 2026 messaging has been anything but subtle. He has described the category with barbed comparisons, including calling it “Fórmula E with steroids” in 2026 contexts, and he has also compared the cars to a ‘Mario Kart’ style experience.
As a legal-minded observer, you ask: is that criticism about performance trade-offs, or is it about brand and respect? When a champion repeatedly frames the regulation of 2026 through jokes and exaggeration, the sporting authority has to consider whether the communication is damaging the competition’s credibility.
Then there’s the technical layer. Verstappen’s complaints have often circled practical constraints, including energy management across stints and sessions. That is a legitimate area for a debate technical—but once it turns into public downplaying of what the sport is, the argument changes.
Why Montoya talks about super license points
Let’s get precise. The super license is the FIA’s tool to regulate driving eligibility and, crucially, it can be used to enforce discipline through accumulated points. Montoya’s idea is to treat reckless public language like an actionable breach category.
He isn’t proposing censorship of opinion. He explicitly said the problem is not disliking rules; the issue is the manner of delivery—what he called a lack of respect toward the sport and the work connected to it.
So the proposal is simple in logic and heavy in effect: put Verstappen closer to the threshold by adding seven or eight points to the super license, warn that further incidents could produce a suspension, and force the paddock to understand that words can carry sporting cost.
And yes, there’s a timing angle. The Formula 1 schedule has the Canadian GP from May 22 to 24, and a sanction like this would land right in the middle of the season’s high-pressure storyline. If the message is “keep it professional,” why wait until the next storm?
The political reading inside the paddock
Montoya’s second point is where the story turns from hot air into jogo político. He argued that there are two layers in what Verstappen says: what he personally feels, and what the team wants him to say.
That distinction matters in sports governance. Teams have incentives. When a driver speaks on behalf of a brand, the line between personal expression and strategic lobbying gets blurry. In the paddock, messaging is often a negotiation tactic—players and managers alike know it.
Montoya basically said the competitive ecosystem influences the narrative: Red Bull’s competitiveness shapes the loudness, and the organization’s goals shape the framing. That’s why his remedy is deterrence. If language becomes a lever teams can pull without consequences, the paddock becomes a press-conference courtroom with no judge.
So we end up with a direct question for the FIA: should the enforcement system reflect not only track behaviour, but also conduct that undermines the rulemaking process? Montoya’s answer is “yes,” and he wants it implemented through super license points—because that’s where the risk becomes real.
What this could mean for the 2026 debate
If the FIA ever embraced this approach, the 2026 regulation of 2026 debate would change tone overnight. The technical disagreement would still exist, but the public theatrics would likely cool. That’s not censorship; it’s risk management.
For Verstappen, a super license points approach would also shift incentives. Instead of amplifying every soundbite, you’d expect more careful wording, more channelled technical debate, and fewer “campaign-style” jabs that can be read as disrespect.
For other drivers, it could set a precedent: if you want to fight the direction of the sport, do it through structured channels where the FIA can engage, rather than through slogans that inflame the paddock. Because if the cost of speech becomes a suspension risk, even the loudest megaphones will think twice.
O Veredito Jogo Hoje
We’re not buying the idea that this is just “media noise.” Montoya’s proposal is a clean legal-grade deterrent: treat the super license like the sport treats driving standards, with consequences that change behaviour. If Verstappen wants to wage a public campaign against the 2026 direction, then the FIA should make sure the campaign doesn’t come free. That’s how you protect the credibility of the rules while keeping the paddock politics from hijacking the technical future.
Perguntas Frequentes
What Juan Pablo Montoya said about Max Verstappen?
Montoya argued that Verstappen should face a harsher sanction for public remarks attacking the 2026 rulebook, proposing that the driver receive seven or eight points on the super license to deter repeat behaviour.
Why does Verstappen criticize the 2026 regulation so much?
His critiques have targeted the direction of the technical package and the practical demands of the cars, including energy management, and he has framed his concerns through comparisons meant to highlight discomfort with the current approach.
What are super license points and how can they lead to a suspension?
Super license points are part of the FIA’s discipline system. When a driver accumulates enough penalty points, it can trigger a suspension, meaning eligibility to race can be temporarily removed based on the threshold.
