Audi F1 livery concept revealed ahead of 2026 debut
November 14, 2025
Felipe Massa’s F1 Crashgate lawsuit against the FIA, Formula 1’s commercial rightsholder FOM and former chief Bernie Ecclestone got underway with a preliminary hearing in London to determine whether the controversial 2008 Championship title will go to full trial.
The former F1 driver is seeking damages amounting to $82 million with claims that he was the rightful 2008 world champion, and that his title was unjustly lost due to a deliberate race manipulation incident at the Singapore Grand Prix famously dubbed as the “Crashgate” scandal.
The case kicked off with a three-day pre-trial hearing in London’s High Court with barrister Nick De Marco KC representing Massa, while John Mehrzad KC led a team of lawyers representing the FIA, Formula One Management and ex-F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone.
The 2008 Singapore Grand Prix “Crashgate” controversy explained
The genesis of the controversy lies in the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix, the first-ever F1 night race, where Renault driver Nelson Piquet Jr. deliberately crashed under instructions from his team’s management.
The orchestrated incident was designed to bring out the safety car at a strategically advantageous moment for his teammate Fernando Alonso.
Piquet’s crash on lap 14 brought out the safety car period benefited Alonso, who had pitted early and could capitalize on the race bunching up, ultimately allowing the double world champion to win the race.
However, the move effectively compromised Felipe Massa’s race strategy which was compounded by a botched pit stop as his fuel hose remained attached, ultimately finishing down in 13th well out of the points.
The disastrous race outcome critically influenced the 2008 F1 championship title as Alonso’s teammate Lewis Hamilton took the crown by a single point ahead of Massa.
The collision orchestrated by Renault was later revealed publicly by Piquet the following season, confirming the deliberate nature of his crash as ordered by then-Renault team principal Flavio Briatore and technical director Pat Symonds.
The infamous event has since been branded the biggest scandal in modern Formula 1 history, tainting the legitimacy of the 2008 championship outcome.
All F1 World Champions by year – Formula 1 history
Most F1 race wins: Drivers with most victories in Formula 1 history
What are Massa’s key demands in the F1 court case?
While Briatore and Symonds faced legal repercussions including bans from F1 races, the question of whether the sport’s wider leadership—FIA and FOM—was aware of the incident at the time and deliberately chose to conceal it until now forms the crux of Massa’s lawsuit.
Felipe Massa does not seek to have Lewis Hamilton stripped of the title, a remedy that only the FIA can administer and which cannot be compelled through legal jurisdiction outside the sport’s governance.
Instead, Massa’s aim is twofold: firstly, to gain formal recognition that he was the legitimate 2008 world champion based on the events materially impacted by the Crashgate scandal; and secondly to claim significant financial compensation.
The $82 million figure represents Massa’s estimation of lost earnings, sponsorship deals and career opportunities that would have flowed from having been officially crowned a world champion.
Ex-F1 bosses Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley accused of cover-up
Central to Massa’s case are statements made by Bernie Ecclestone who was the Formula 1 CEO at the time, publicly admitting in 2023 that he and then FIA president Max Mosley were aware of the deliberate crash but chose not to expose or investigate it thoroughly to avoid a political fallout and the prospect of an enormous scandal.
These admissions serve as pivotal evidence for Massa’s lawyers who argue there was a willful cover-up by Formula 1’s highest authorities.
According to legal submissions, the silence and inaction of the FIA and FOM not only allowed Renault’s cheating to stand unpunished but fundamentally altered the championship result.
“The first point is that it is no exaggeration to say the deliberate crash was one of the most serious incidents of sport manipulation in world sport, not only because it was blatant attempt to intervene in the race, but the deliberate act threatened the life of spectators and the driver himself,” said Massa’s legal counsel De Marco.
“What then happens is the deliberate concealment of the conspiracy to have a crash, the deliberate concealment by those with responsibility for protecting the integrity of the sport, deliberately conspiring together to cover up one of the most serious scandals in the history of sport.”
Nine most controversial F1 races of all time
On the other hand, defense lawyers representing Ecclestone and the FIA claimed the lawsuit is a “misguided attempt” to rewrite history, arguing that Massa’s own racing errors during the season contributed to his title loss and that any claims are time-barred given the passage of nearly two decades.
“This litigation will not result in Mr Massa getting the prize he wants, and the only ‘winners’ out of a further 12 to 18 months of litigation will be the lawyers,” said FOM’s counsellor Anneliese Day KC.
“The simple fact is that over the course of both the Singapore Grand Prix and across the 2008 F1 championship title battle, Mr Hamilton outperformed Mr Massa.
“There is nothing unusual or unfair about that: Mr Massa simply had the misfortune to be up against one of the greatest drivers the sport has ever seen, and neither he nor anyone else could beat Mr Hamilton over the course of the season.”
Our verdict on Felipe Massa’s F1 Crashgate lawsuit
The legal hearing has seen vigorous debate over the jurisdiction and admissibility of Massa’s claims, touching on the governance protocols of international motor sport and contractual clauses that preclude external legal challenges to FIA decisions.
Nevertheless, Massa’s barrister insists the case has “a real prospect of success” and that the civil court is the appropriate forum to seek redress for what amounts to one of sports’ most egregious injustices.
If successful, Massa’s case could have profound implications for Formula 1, setting a precedent for challenging not only past race fixing incidents but also the accountability of governing bodies in preserving the sport’s credibility.
It could open the door to revisiting championship results and highlight systemic issues within the sport’s regulatory framework concerning transparency and fairness.
The High Court is yet to decide whether the case proceeds to a full trial or dropped.
