Interference from his sport’s governing body over a trivial matter resulted in the world’s number one chess player, Magnus Carlsen, quitting a tournament in protest.

The International Chess Federation (FIDE) was forced to back down over an initial inflexibility regarding its rules when the leading name in the tournament simply bowed out in response.

What did Magnus Carlsen do?

Chess’ world number one player Magnus Carlsen –  a position he’s held for 13 years – was gearing up to compete in the FIDE World Rapid and Blitz Chess Championships in New York last week when he decided to quit over a dispute over clothing.

Carlsen had shown up for the competition in a pair of jeans and was all set to defend his titles at the tournament when he was approached and told, after a few rounds, he would be fined over his clothing choices.

Later, he was then told he couldn’t play at all if he didn’t change his clothes. This didn’t go down well with the Norwegian, who refused to change his jeans and, instead, pulled out of the tournament.

Having been to a lunch meeting prior to his arrival at the tournament, he told Take Take Take: “I put on a shirt, jacket and honestly like I didn’t even think about jeans.”

He revealed he would be planning to go somewhere the weather was “a bit nicer”, and said, “I am too old at this point to care too much.”

The tournament losing its number one draw in Carlsen resulted in FIDE scrambling to quickly rewrite its rules to cover off his jeans-wearing audacity, with Carlsen then returning to participate in response – resulting in the chess federation declaring it “great news for the chess world”.

“The situation was badly mishandled on their side,” Carlsen said in an interview with Take Take Take.

“I was about to book my plane tickets.”

Having been left in the position of trying to recover its authority in the aftermath of Carlsen exposing their pettiness, FIDE boldly stuck out their chests by deploying “special assistants” to help judges decide on player’s outfits to ensure acceptability.

“I sincerely hope that nobody would try to undermine the festive mood, including by abusing this additional flexibility,” said Arkady Dvorkovich, FIDE president in a statement.

More on Formula 1 and its governance

👉 F1 2025 driver line-up: Who is already confirmed for the 2025 grid?

👉 FIA explained: What does it stand for and how does it govern Formula 1?

Why the FIA should keep this display of strength in mind

Much has been made in recent months about the ongoing interference of F1’s governing body, the FIA, in matters where its involvement isn’t particularly warranted.

Under FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem, this interference first began to make itself felt in 2022 over matters such as the wearing of jewelry and certain types of underwear.

With the FIA responding to the fall-out of the 2021 Abu Dhabi GP rules controversy by beginning to enforce the letter of every rule, the decision by then-race director Niels Wittich to re-prioritise a long-standing jewelry ban was met with disdain by seven-time F1 World Champion Lewis Hamilton.

Hamilton showed up for an FIA press conference wearing three watches and eight rings in response, and raced with ear piercings and a nose stud.

“I feel they are personal things. You should be able to be who you are. There’s stuff that I can’t move,” he said.

“I literally can’t take these out [piercings on his right ear]. They’re literally welded on so I’d have to get them chopped off or something. So they’ll be staying.”

Four-time F1 World Champion Sebastian Vettel, who sided with Hamilton on the matter, also put on a show of protest by wearing a fetching pair of boxer shorts over his race suit at the 2022 Miami Grand Prix, highlighting a clampdown – on safety grounds – over the wearing of normal underwear under the fire-retardant standards set out by the rules.

In 2024, the tweaking of the International Sporting Code to include a very broad “misconduct” charge resulted in a punishment being meted out to Max Verstappen over his use of language in an official FIA press conference in Singapore.

Referring to his car, Verstappen said the Red Bull RB20 had been “f**ked” after a setup change during the preceding race weekend in Azerbaijan, which resulted in an FIA investigation and a resulting punishment of serving “work in the public interest”.

Charles Leclerc was also given a €10,000 fine for using the same word, albeit followed by an apology, during a press conference in Brazil several weeks later.

Ben Sulayem’s push to enforce more respectful standards for F1’s competitors has divided opinion.

Hailing from the United Arab Emirates, some see the enforcement as being symbolic of the more conservative values Ben Sulayem would have grown up with – thus making such tweaks more of a personal evolution – while others see the use of such language, particularly when not used in an insulting or abusive way, as merely being standard vocabulary used by adults in an adult setting.

While sportspeople competing at the top level of sport should obviously have to abide by certain standards, including decorum and respectability, the issue is where the line is drawn – while few, including Hamilton, would argue that the wearing of jewelry does make a difference to his safety in the event of a crash, how much say should the FIA have over such personal freedoms?

Similarly, given F1 is a professional sport for adults first, and a TV spectacle second, why should a driver’s choice of vocabulary trigger penalties from the governing body, particularly in the context of them being used neutrally and about inanimate objects, rather than in disparaging ways about a rival?

The Grand Prix Drivers Association (GPDA) wrote an open letter recently, voicing their disdain over fines being issued over such matters and the enforcement of more minor regulations in draconian fashion.

“As is the case with every sport, competitors must abide by the referee’s decision, whether they agree with it or not. That is how sport works. The drivers (our members), are no different, and fully understand that,” the letter read.

“With regards to swearing, there is a difference between swearing intended to insult others and more casual swearing, such as you might use to describe bad weather, or indeed an inanimate object such as an F1 car, or a driving situation.

“We urge the FIA president to consider his own tone and language when talking to our member drivers, or indeed about them, whether in a public forum or otherwise.

“Further, our members are adults. They do not need to be given instructions by the media about matters as trivial as the wearing of jewelry or underpants.”

The letter added: “The GPDA has, on countless occasions, expressed its view that driver monetary fines are not appropriate for our sport.

“For the past three years, we have called upon the FIA president to share the details and strategy regarding how the FIA’s financial fines are allocated and where the funds are spent.

“We have also relayed our concerns about the negative image financial fines bring to the sport. We once again request the FIA president provide financial transparency and direct, open dialogue with us.

“All stakeholders (FIA, F1, the teams, and the GPDA) should jointly determine how and whether the money is spent for the benefit of the sport.”

Heading into the F1 2025, Ben Sulayem and the FIA would do well to keep Carlsen’s actions in mind.

Having had their authority called out, FIDE was forced to do an embarrassing climbdown in response in order to maintain the high standards of its competition – and there’s no doubt Max Verstappen will have taken note of how it played out in Carlsen’s favour.

Verstappen made his disdain for the matter clear – Carlsen’s comments above closely mirror the Dutch driver’s own – but, due to his position in the championship, was never in danger of pulling out of a race in response – doing so would only have damaged his championship aspirations in the latter stages of what had been a long year.

For 2025, though, this is reset – sending an early message might not be as much of a psychological hurdle to overcome if Verstappen, or anyone else, wanted to send a message to the governing body.

While F1 is perhaps not as much of a one-man show as chess, Verstappen is the sport’s leading man at the moment – his failure to take part in a Grand Prix, or a championship, absolutely diminishes the quality of the product on offer at present.

Should the FIA continue to head down the path of draconian enforcement, only names as prominent as Verstappen or Lewis Hamilton are big enough and prominent enough to make a Carlsen-esque stand in a similar fashion – their names transcend the sport and would make global headlines if they chose to boycott their own arena. Both have the clout, and the stubborn temperament, to draw a line in the sand if they felt aggrieved enough – Hamilton backed Verstappen by saying he hoped the Dutch driver wouldn’t serve his punishment, while Verstappen made it clear that such annoyances could drive him out of the sport.

“Oh, for sure,” he stated. “I mean, these kind of things definitely decide my future as well.

“You can’t be yourself, or you have to deal with these kind of silly things. I think now, I’m at the stage of my career that you don’t want to be dealing with this all the time. It’s really tiring.

“Of course, it’s great to have success and win races, but once you have accomplished all that, winning championships and races, you want to just have a good time as well.

“Of course, everyone is pushing to the limit. Everyone in this battle, even at the back of the grid. But if you have to deal with all these kinds of silly things, for me, that is another way of [not] continuing in the sport.”

However, would the FIA be cowed by Verstappen or Hamilton in the same way as FIDE was cowed by Carlsen? After all, F1 isn’t as much of a one-man show as chess. Also, in a championship, even missing one race in a protest would severely damage a driver’s championship aspirations – success would still be the main driving force for any driver, regardless of anger over off-track matters.

Given the dramatic trials and tribulations the governing body has been through in its history, a driver choosing to boycott might just seem like small potatoes to weather – but the commercial rights holder might not necessarily agree with that. The relationship between FOM and the FIA has had its ups and downs in recent years, but appears to be largely in a good place entering the F1 2025 season.

This could change very rapidly if the FIA’s hard-line stance over such matters escalates to the point of causing one of the sport’s biggest names to decide enough is enough, and the alignment of the GPDA suggests they are all aware of this.

It’s hard not to feel the FIA has caught itself between a rock and a hard place to some extent. After 2021, the cries for complete enforcement of the rulebooks resulted in the FIA becoming militant in its efforts – such as enforcing track limits brutally, and resulting in occasionally farcical penalty-laden races – only for everyone to discover that this stance wasn’t particularly enjoyable either.

The FIA may feel that it’s too big and powerful to be humiliated in the way Carlsen humiliated FIDE last week, and it may well be right – but it can’t afford to have its bluff called.

Read Next: Lewis Hamilton issues first social media reaction with Ferrari move official