So Max Verstappen told a journalist to leave. Here’s why that’s not the story you think it is.
If you’ve been on F1 Twitter/Tumblr today, you’ve seen the discourse: Max Verstappen told Guardian journalist, Giles Richards, to leave a Red Bull press conference in Japan. Cue the predictable takes about “disrespect,” “bullying the media,” and “why can’t he just answer questions.”
But here’s the thing: the story isn’t that Max told someone to leave.
The story is who he told to leave, why, and why multiple top drivers have had the same problem with the same reporter.
Let’s break this down with receipts (this is long so I have it under the keep reading break). TL;DR at the bottom!
Discourse #1) Max told a reporter to leave.
So what? Drivers control their media access all the time.
The only thing that’s “controversial” here is that Max did it openly instead of getting Red Bull's PR team to handle it quietly. Max has an 11-year history of telling reporters off directly. This isn’t new.
2018, Daily Mail reporter: asked why he’d had so many accidents. Max’s response?
“I get really tired of all the questions so, yeah, I think if I get a few more, I’ll headbutt someone.”
2022, Sky Sports UK: Max refused to talk to them entirely after Ted Kravitz said Lewis was “robbed” of the 2021 title and after Sky used footage of Max’s 51g Silverstone crash in a Christmas advert.
2024, Singapore GP: Max gave minimal answers as a protest against the FIA after being penalized for swearing.
2024, post-Qatar (winning his 4th title):
“The problem in F1 is that 80 to 85% of the media is British. And I did feel that some things which were written about me were not fair.”
Max still speaks to all FIA-accredited journalists at FIA events. He’s not refusing to do his job, but he is refusing to engage (in a setting he is in control of) with someone he feels has been deliberately provocative. That’s a ban on one journalist from a non-FIA team event, we aren’t seeing a ban on the press.
And let’s not pretend drivers don’t control their media access:
Fernando Alonso, Lewis Hamilton, & Max Verstappen (Netflix 2025): all three world champs refused to do interviews for Netflix DTS in 2025.
Lewis Hamilton & Netflix (2019): blocked them from using footage of a bad German GP weekend because he didn’t like how he’d be portrayed. Fair enough!
Kimi Räikkönen (entire career): walked out, gave one-word answers, ignored questions. Iconic and GOATed for it.
Sebastian Vettel (2016, 2020): skipped or gave minimal participation in FIA press conferences when unhappy with narratives.
Fernando Alonso (2007): repeatedly refused interviews with British outlets he felt were biased toward Lewis Hamilton.
McLaren under Ron Dennis: journalists were informally frozen out for negative coverage. It was a whole scandal.
Ferrari historically: heavy preference for Italian media; international journalists often struggle for access.
Drivers and teams have always chosen how they’re perceived where they have control. The only difference is that Max is blunt about it.
But another point to be made is that Max has a low tolerance for what he perceives as disrespect — not just to himself, but to the people he works with. He’s been known to be protective and:
End interviews when questions target his engineer or team
Call out journalists who try to manufacture intra and inter-team drama (e.g. shutting down the line of questioning to Lewis after Silverstone 2021, or Checo’s “pressure” in 2024 to keep his seat the next season)
Defend rivals when he feels the media is being unfair to them (e.g. his defense of Lewis after the 2021 Abu Dhabi fallout, where he repeatedly said the controversy was not Lewis’s fault).
He’s also been known to call out disrespect towards female reporters and fans.
This is part of why the Giles Richards situation escalated the way it did. Richards’ Abu Dhabi 2025 question wasn’t just about Max — it was about opening a wound (that had already been asked and answered multiple times post-Spain), isolating a single incident, and implying Max’s single action cost him (and his team) the title. Max saw it as disrespectful, clearly stating that no one was mentioning all the good things that happened (“birthday presents”) and all the good work the team did during the season. He was protective of his team, and months later, he still remembered.
Discourse #2) The real issue: Giles Richards has a pattern of asking provocative questions to drivers at their most vulnerable.
Let’s look at the receipts.
Japan 2024: Lewis Hamilton
Race result: P9. Disappointing weekend. Final season with Mercedes before Ferrari move.
Richards’ question: “Are you a little bit jealous of the Ferraris at the moment? Because they are faster?”
Lewis responded: “No”
And Richards dug his heel in more: “No? Looking forward to being with them, yeah, because they are faster or just…”
Lewis snapped: “Do you have any better questions?” and after a bit of Richards trying to back track, Lewis walked out.
The word “jealous” is emotionally charged and accusatory. Drivers like Lewis are usually very protective of their team, by attacking not only his performance, but the Mercedes car itself, Richards is implying that the team let Lewis down. Lewis loves Mercedes, and he knew the team was doing their best. Then Richards rubs his lack of results this race in his face MORE. A neutral version would be: “Does Ferrari’s current form make you more eager/excited for the move?” But that doesn’t generate a viral clip, does it?
Lewis Hamilton has another 20 races of the season to go with Mercedes before heading to Scuderia Ferrari. The 7-time F1 Drivers’ World Champ
Abu Dhabi 2025: Max Verstappen
Context: Max had just lost the world championship by two points to Lando Norris. Minutes after the race. Maybe the most painful moment of his season. His team is in tears, he’s trying to be gracious and happy for Lando, he knows he’s about to be attacked in the conference and expected to keep his cool.
Richards’ question: “You lost out to Lando by just two points. What do you think now about the incident with George Russell in Spain? Do you regret that looking back in hindsight?”
Max’s response at the time: “You forget all the other stuff that happened in my season. The only thing you mention is Barcelona. I knew that would come. You’re giving me a stupid grin now.”
The question isolates one error from a 24-race season and asks him to own it immediately after the title loss. A neutral version would be: "Looking at the season as a whole, where do you feel the biggest swings in points happened?" Which had already been asked previously that week (something that has been asked repeatedly the second half of the season and Max had answered numerous times, any good journalist would stop asking this question after the first 2-3 times it had been reported).
Notice the pattern?
Both questions came immediately after a difficult/disappointing result.
Both questions were framed to elicit defensiveness or emotional responses rather than substantial analysis or meaningful reflection (jealousy? regret?).
Both drivers reacted negatively.
When two multiple world champions from different teams with different personalities both react the same way to the same journalist in similar emotional contexts, it stops being a coincidence.
Richards himself has admitted he’s been called “anti-Lewis” and “anti-Sebastian Vettel” in the past. That suggests this isn’t a one-off misunderstanding. I couldn’t find any explicit examples of Richards and Seb’s interactions, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an article out there somewhere.
Discourse 3) Free speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.
There’s this weird discourse that journalists can ask anything and sportspeople just have to take it. No. That’s not how it works.
In any profession (or even in life), if you’re deliberately provocative or disrespectful, you face consequences:
A store can ban you.
A school can suspend you.
Your spouse can divorce you.
Your job can fire you.
A team can revoke your media access.
Richards is choosing to word questions in ways that provoke negative reactions. After 10 years of being a sports journalist, he DOES know how to word his questions appropriately and is CHOOSING not to. This is rage-baiting disguised as journalism. And when you do that to elite athletes in their most vulnerable moments (just minutes after a performance, when they haven’t spoken to their teams or had the chance to reflect or analyze their performances, to let the emotions settle), you’re welcoming criticism and consequences.
Some things people might not know: F1 media operates under strict accreditation rules.
The FIA controls media access, and they don’t mess around.
Accreditation requirements include:
Permanent accreditation requires attending 14+ events in the preceding season.
Race-by-race requires commissioning letters and proof of publication.
Applications require professional insurance, press cards, and media coverage samples.
All applications are subject to approval with no guarantee.
If a journalist repeatedly causes issues, teams can push for restrictions. We’ve seen it before.
Some examples of recent FIA enforcement: Johnny Herbert & Derek Warwick
The FIA has shown they will act when someone crosses a line:
Johnny Herbert (2025): removed from stewarding duties because his media work was “incompatible” with impartiality. Herbert had repeatedly criticized Max Verstappen in gambling site interviews. Jos Verstappen and Fernando Alonso have openly accused Herbert of bias (even his fellow pundits have made remarks about it on broadcast). The FIA’s statement: “his duties as an FIA steward and that of a media pundit were incompatible.”
Derek Warwick (2025): suspended for the Canadian GP after unauthorized media comments criticizing the FIA’s choice to penalize Verstappen in Spain. The FIA said his comments were “ill-advised.” He was replaced and only reinstated after apologizing.
If a steward can be sidelined for biased or provocative commentary, why should a journalist be immune from consequences for deliberately provocative questioning?
Discourse #4) The difference: “soft bans” vs. “hard bans”
What Max did is a “hard ban” it is direct, public, explicit. This is a world-wide sport with fans and personnel from a vast variety of cultures. Max’s way of dealing with this may have come off as disrespectful or harsh to the fans of cultures that are more soft-spoken. Max himself comes from a background that is stern, direct, and merciless. He gave Richards multiple chances to leave without extending the interaction, Richards chose to argue to get more press from it.
What makes this “news” worthy is that what usually happens is “soft bans”:
Ignoring specific journalists but not overtly
Giving access only to preferred outlets
Quietly excluding critics
Giving one-word answers until the journalist moves on
Max doesn’t do subtle. He’s been this way since his Toro Rosso days. But let’s not pretend soft bans don’t happen constantly.
The bottom line
Max Verstappen has a long history of being direct with reporters. He’s not banning all journalists. He’s banning one — from a non-FIA team event — after a pattern of provocative questioning that he, Lewis Hamilton, and probably others have reacted negatively to.
Giles Richards has now had two publicized incidents with top drivers (Lewis 2024, Max 2025) where he asked emotionally charged questions at vulnerable moments. The pattern suggests either a lack of training in paddock etiquette or a deliberate editorial strategy of rage-baiting. Neither is a good look.
Free speech means Richards can ask what he wants. It also means teams and drivers can decide who gets access to their events. And if the FIA can remove stewards for being “incompatible” with impartiality, they can certainly review whether certain journalists are maintaining professional standards or acting like paparazzi antagonizing drivers for a big story.
The only thing that was unusual here is that Max said it out loud. But that’s always the “problem” with him, isn’t it?
TL;DR:
Max Verstappen told Guardian journalist Giles Richards to leave a Red Bull hospitality session. The discourse is acting like this is unprecedented "bullying" of the press. It's not.
Drivers control media access all the time. The only difference is Max is blunt about it. Lewis blocked Netflix. Kimi gave one-word answers. Vettel skipped FIA pressers. Alonso refused British outlets. Soft bans happen constantly.
Richards has a pattern. In 2024, he asked Lewis Hamilton if he was "jealous" of Ferrari right after a bad race. Lewis snapped and walked out. In 2025, he asked Max if he regretted the Spain collision minutes after losing the championship by two points. Both questions were emotionally charged, asked at vulnerable moments, and designed to provoke.
Free speech isn't consequence-free. If a journalist repeatedly rage-baits athletes, teams can revoke access. The FIA has sidelined stewards (Herbert, Warwick) for biased commentary. This is the same principle.
"Soft bans" are normal. "Hard bans" are just honest. Max didn't ban all journalists. He banned one — from a non-FIA team event — after a pattern of disrespect he'd had enough of.
The only thing unusual here is that Max said it out loud. But that's always been his style.
