Montoya: Do we want to see F1 drivers' personalities or little princesses?

Former F1 driver Montoya questioned whether the sport itself supports the move by F1's governing body, the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), and pointed out inconsistencies in how such incidents are handled.

Montoya ventured: "The question that I have is, do you think that lines up with what Formula 1 wants, or is it just what the FIA wants? That for me is one of the big questions because if swearing was 'so bad for F1,’ why do they put it on air anyway? They could prevent it.

"By choice, if somebody swears on the radio, they have the choice not to put it on the air. There are a thousand conversations going on in a race, and they only pick five or ten of them—80% of which are swearing or people losing their minds. Or pissed off about something, because it's good for TV.

"Is FOM in line with the FIA with this? That's the million-dollar question. I agree with what they're trying to do about protecting the FIA. I mean, it's a little bit... I need to be careful... It's similar to what Trump is doing, signing orders. I understand what the FIA are trying to do, but you need to be careful."

Montoya further warned that the restrictions could sanitise driver behaviour to the detriment of the sport: "Do you want to see drivers' personalities, or do you want to see little princesses? Do you want to see rough guys being angry, fighting the other guy with passion and love, putting everything on the line?

"Or are you looking for the guy that gets run over and goes, 'Oh my gosh, they pushed me off' like nothing happened? It's basically going to make the drivers swear the same way, but they're just not going to open a communication channel."

Montoya also suggested that F1’s response to swearing varies depending on the driver, particularly when comparing Max Verstappen to others on the grid: "Yeah, but Charles Leclerc did the same thing. I understand because of the young audience F1 has, but nowadays they all hear it and use it; in school, in kindergarten. There's a line you can draw for everything.

"If it happened live, then I would understand it, as you're in front of millions of people. or say on a Friday or Thursday press conference, I just don't understand it. You want personalities, you want to see people express themselves. But it's down to how the media handles it. They can easily make a big deal out of it.

"For example, if it had been George Russell who had sworn, the reaction would've been very different compared to if it had been Max. You could hear when Charles did it, everyone shrugged and let it go. When Max did it, everyone treated him like he was a terrible person."

Montoya warned that banning drivers for swearing could have unintended consequences, especially if a title contender were to be penalised: "My counter to that is, how is a race organiser going to react when the leader of a world championship doesn't go to the event after being banned? How is a sponsor going to react?

"Everyone thought that having penalties for swearing would've been a good thing. But now that they're reality, everyone's like, 'Oh s**t'. If it was Magnussen, he's not a big character, people will not care too much. But if Lewis Hamilton had not driven his Ferrari because he swore or did something wrong, how would everyone have reacted?"

"Everyone would do everything in their power to let him race anyway. They'd change the rules and adapt them because they can't afford to not have Lewis in the Ferrari at, say, the British Grand Prix. That's where they need to be careful with rules like this—they need to be fair for everyone," insisted the Colombian.

He also believes the FIA must be consistent with penalties but suggested community service as a more effective deterrent: "The problem is, if they give somebody a pass against the rules, the next time someone does it, they'll argue to be let off too. It's like what the stewards do in the races.

"If they make the wrong call once, then make the right one later, and only one person gets penalised... the next guy is going to complain. I think it's unnecessary. I think that it should come down to drivers receiving community service. I think that's the right approach. Drivers appreciate their time more than anything in the world.

"When you're a driver and you're the one travelling, doing a lot of hard work, any day off is worth having. If you lose that to do community service, then believe me, it really sucks. I had to travel all the way to Costa Rica because of it once," recalled the 53-year-old.

Montoya pointed out the financial disparity in F1, suggesting that uniform fines are unfair to rookies compared to highly paid veterans: "Imagine if the driver was Antonelli—that is a huge financial burden for someone just starting their F1 career. If that same penalty was for Lewis, then it isn't really the same penalty, it doesn't affect him.

"It doesn't have the same value, and that's where the FIA’s rule looks broken. Yes, they're all F1 drivers, but you have six rookies this year, and all of them put together wouldn't even match 20% of the salaries Max or Lewis receive. Is it fair that they all get the same penalty?

"That's why the penalties would be fairer if they were community service or other things that provide more benefit to the sport without hindering the driver as much."

In closing, Montoya encouraged drivers to challenge the FIA’s decision but insisted they should propose alternatives rather than outright rejection: "They should, but they need to come back with something reasonable. You can't just go back with a ‘No, we don't accept this.’ I think if you come back with a proposal where you base it on community service days, then that would make more sense."