Under the Regulator’s Microscope: The FIA Foundation and the Crisis of Fiduciary Independence

by Jasper Maddox · 26/01/2026

On 26 January 2026, the Charity Commission for England and Wales issued a public announcement that placed the philanthropic legacy of international motorsport into a state of regulatory semi-receivership. By opening a statutory inquiry under Section 46 of the Charities Act 2011, the Commission has not only initiated a formal investigation into the FIA Foundation but has also deployed an immediate temporary protective order—a draconian measure that strips trustees of their autonomy by requiring prior written approval for significant transactions. This is a watershed moment for the UK charity sector. It serves as a definitive warning to “parent-subsidiary” charitable structures: the regulator will no longer tolerate the blurring of lines between a charity’s independent mission and the strategic or political whims of its founding body.

The timing of the Commission’s intervention is as telling as its severity. While the public announcement came on 26 January, the inquiry was formally opened on 22 January 2026, immediately following the departure of Executive Director Saul Billingsley “by mutual agreement.” For any seasoned investigative observer, the exit of a founding executive—Billingsley was instrumental in the Foundation’s 2001 inception—on the eve of a statutory inquiry is a significant red flag. It suggests a fracturing of the internal governance structure at a time when the Foundation’s fiduciary independence is being fundamentally challenged by the leadership of its founding body, the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA).

Governance in the Crosshairs

The heart of the crisis lies in the systematic dismantling of the Foundation’s independent checks and balances. The transition of leadership in 2025, where Mohammed Ben Sulayem, the President of the FIA, replaced David Richards CBE—the former head of Motorsport UK—as chair, represents a consolidation of power that contradicts the basic tenets of charity law. Richards was a vocal advocate for transparency, leading a “principles, not politics” revolt against Ben Sulayem’s leadership style, specifically objecting to the pervasive use of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) within the World Motor Sport Council.

This shift in chairing from an independent sporting leader to the ex officio head of the founding body has triggered intense scrutiny over whether the charity’s assets are being managed in the interest of the public or the parent organisation. Natalie Robyn, the former FIA CEO who departed after just 18 months, has further complicated the narrative by testifying to a lack of “professional processes” and the exclusion of stakeholders from decision-making. The Commission’s inquiry is now meticulously calibrated to examine:

Conflicts of Interest: Whether the “interlocking directorate” between the Foundation and the FIA has compromised independent decision-making.
Management of Property: Determining if charitable assets are being diverted to non-charitable, “parent-body” interests.
Compliance with Fiduciary Duties: Assessing whether trustees are adhering to the Charities Act 2011 and the Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP).

The Conflict of Loyalty: By the Numbers

The strategic risk inherent in the Foundation’s current structure is most visible in its board composition. A staggering 9 out of 12 trustees currently hold senior roles within the non-charitable FIA. This density of “dual-hatted” trustees creates an environment where a “conflict of loyalty”—a scenario where a trustee’s duty to the FIA could prevent them from acting solely in the Foundation’s best interests—is not merely possible but structurally inevitable.

The Foundation’s own Conflicts of Interest Policy lists “common situations” that should trigger alarm, including making grants where a trustee is a beneficiary or paying a trustee for a separate post. Yet, with a board dominated by FIA nominees and leadership, the perception of impropriety has reached a critical mass.

Governance Structure vs. Regulatory Mandate

Governance Aspect	Current Foundation Reality	Legal/Regulatory Requirement
Board Independence	75% of trustees (9/12) hold senior FIA roles.	Trustees must act independently of external control.
Chair Autonomy	Held ex officio by the FIA President.	Must be free from the undue influence of founding bodies.
Fiduciary Duty	The board includes three FIA-nominated directors.	Duty to act solely in the best interests of the charity.
Conflict Management	Reliance on self-declaration in a majority-linked board.	Conflicts must be identified, managed, and avoided.

The Commission is effectively asking whether a board so deeply embedded in the FIA’s hierarchy can ever truly say “no” to its founder. Under UK law, even a “reasonable perception” of conflict is sufficient for a breach of duty.

Financial Stakes and Operational Pressure

The scale of the Foundation’s financial footprint explains the Commission’s haste. As of 31 December 2024, the Foundation managed a portfolio of €468.7 million. However, a deep dive into the financial statements reveals a startling lack of performance. The Foundation’s stated long-term objective is to “preserve the capital base in real terms.” Yet, when compared to the original $300 million donation adjusted for the European Consumer Price Index (CPI), the portfolio shows a €27.29 million shortfall.

This failure to keep pace with inflation—despite a total investment return of 13.5% in 2024—illustrates the financial pressure facing the board. Notably, the board recently moved to terminate Sarasin and Partners LLP, shifting approximately one-third of the portfolio to passive management via State Street Global Advisors after no active manager outperformed the global passive benchmark. For a charity of this size, such a retreat to passive management often signals a loss of strategic confidence in the face of dwindling real-value reserves.

The human collateral of this governance failure is immense. In 2024, the Foundation awarded €16.3 million in grants to 39 organisations. These funds support the International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP), which has prevented an estimated 700,000 deaths and serious injuries since 2016. It funded Africa’s first motorcycle crash helmet laboratory in Rwanda and advocated for “Sammy’s Law” in New York. The Commission’s protective order, by necessitating “prior written approval” for transactions, threatens the operational agility of these life-saving programmes. If the Foundation’s fiduciary integrity is not restored, the global road safety movement faces a catastrophic funding vacuum.

The Wider Context: Structural Turmoil at the FIA

This investigation is part of a broader pattern of institutional instability within the FIA. The departure of key personnel—including CEO Natalie Robyn, Sporting Director Tim Nielsen, and Deputy President for Sport Robert Reid—paints a picture of a federation in crisis. Robyn’s exit was reportedly forced after she raised questions regarding “finances in the president’s office” and the lack of adherence to professional processes.

Crucially, the 2026 Concorde Agreement—the framework governing Formula One—has, for the first time, unbundled its commercial and governance tracks. This separation acknowledges that governance is no longer a secondary concern but a “performance edge” critical to the sport’s legitimacy. While F1 moves toward a cleaner division of money and rulemaking, the FIA Foundation appears to have moved in the opposite direction, becoming more integrated with its founder’s political structure. This regression is exactly what the Charity Commission’s statutory inquiry aims to reverse.

Lessons in Legitimacy

The FIA Foundation has responded with robust denials, asserting that its affairs have been “properly conducted” and pledging full cooperation. They rightly point out that an inquiry is not a finding of guilt. However, for a high-value charity, the mere fact of an inquiry—and the imposition of a protective order—represents a failure of governance.

The broader lesson for the UK charity sector is clear. The Charity Commission is currently recruiting 85 new staff to handle a significant spike in complex cases. In this new era of proactive oversight, “competence and engagement” are no longer sufficient shields for trustees. High-profile charities must demonstrate absolute structural independence. To survive the regulator’s microscope, they must prove that their fiduciary loyalty to the charitable mission is impenetrable by the political or commercial agendas of their founders. For the FIA Foundation, the inquiry is not just about grant management; it is a battle for its very legitimacy as a charitable trust.