Protecting the prodigy: Analyzing the FIA’s lenient stance on Kimi Antonelli’s early incidents. After controversial incidents in Melbourne and Shanghai, Mercedes’ Kimi Antonelli escapes penalties. .

Considerations on the stewards’ attitude toward the Bolognese driver in controversial incidents that have seen him at the center of attention.

Formula 1 has a perception problem, and this time the name in question is Andrea Kimi Antonelli. After two consecutive weekends, Melbourne and now Shanghai, where the young Italian has come close to—or directly caused—potentially penalizing situations without facing significant sporting consequences, the debate has heated up: are we witnessing the rise of the FIA’s new “golden boy,” much like Max Verstappen was in his early years? Provocative? Follow the reasoning.

The raw facts

Let’s start with the facts, because emotions matter little when talking about stewards and regulations. In Australia, during qualifying for the season opener, Antonelli’s Mercedes left the garage with the duct cooling fans still attached. The device detached once he was on track and was struck by Lando Norris’ McLaren, causing minor damage to the front wing.

A clear violation: unsafe release (Art. B1.6.2 b – i of the Sporting Regulations). Result? A €7,500 fine for the team, zero penalty for the driver. Antonelli retained second place, on the front row alongside teammate George Russell. Official reasoning: human error by the team, not the driver.

“No further action” in Shanghai

Moving on to the Chinese GP. In Sprint Race qualifying, Antonelli (second behind Russell) was accused of impeding Lando Norris: the Brit had to abort a lap because he encountered the Mercedes in front at turn 1. Lando Norris radioed: “He blocked me… I was about to push on that lap!” The incident went under FIA investigation, with a real risk of costing Antonelli three positions for the Sprint.

The investigation’s outcome? No penalty. Stewards listened to the reigning world champion, who admitted he wasn’t on a “proper flying lap,” so no real impediment occurred. Antonelli kept second place, giving Mercedes another front-row lockout. That’s the second FIA investigation in two weekends for the Italian, and the second time without sporting penalties.

The inevitable comparison with Verstappen

The comparison with the early Verstappen years comes to mind. From 2015 to around 2018, the Dutchman was the “protected prodigy”: aggressive contacts, often light or symbolic penalties, accusations of favoritism from half the grid. The FIA seemed to turn a blind eye to the Dutch talent who guaranteed spectacle and audience. The perception was clear: Verstappen could push beyond the limit without always paying the full price.

Is Antonelli different? Yes and no. Different because so far the incidents have been team errors or borderline cases with a witness exonerating him. The FIA has always treated unsafe releases as the mechanics’ fault: fine the garage, spare the driver. The impeding in China followed the rule: if the victim wasn’t on a valid lap, no penalty.

Yet context matters: 19 years old, Italian, Hamilton’s successor in the Anglo-German team, with global hype. The Federation knows a driver like this in a top team is gold for marketing and European audience. Had a penalty been applied in Australia or today in China, we would have lost a Mercedes 1-2. Coincidence? Maybe. System? Possible.

The lingering question

The real question is: if it had been an Audi or Haas driver causing dangerous debris in Q3, or “impeding” Norris this morning, would they have kept their position? Or would a less hyped driver have faced the same type of investigation ending with no consequence?

The FIA has been inconsistent for everyone, as we know, but when inconsistency systematically favors the same name, suspicion arises. Antonelli isn’t (yet) Verstappen: he lacks borderline aggression, hasn’t pushed rivals off track, hasn’t created chaos. But if he keeps collecting “thanks” while dominating with Mercedes, the comparison will become inevitable. Accusations of being the FIA’s “golden boy” could move from meme to constant refrain.

The Federation should be blind to names. Instead, it often seems to see the context: age, team, potential, audience. Antonelli is talented, incredibly fast, mature. He deserves to win on track, not through stewards’ decisions. Otherwise, F1 risks losing credibility again. And the next “Verstappen” won’t be celebrated: he’ll be suspected.