Toxicity in F1 conversation has increased. Positive conversation has increased considerably more.
- In 2024, fewer than a quarter of F1 social posts met our definition of toxic. For every negative post there were two positive ones.
- Positive conversation nearly doubled since 2016, from 23% to 40%.
- Negative conversation also rose, from 8% in 2016 to 20% in 2024. Most of that rise came after 2021, when it went from 11% to 20%.
- The biggest drivers of toxic posts are racing controversies, team and driver rivalries, rules and the FIA, and gatekeeping by long-time fans.
- Our modelling pointed to a 10% to 30% rise in toxic fan interactions over the following three years as new regional fanbases arrive.
Online conversation around Formula 1 has exploded since 2020, and plenty of people believe the sport’s discourse has become steadily nastier with it. As a social intelligence company that has collected F1 conversation data for over a decade, we are in a position to test that belief rather than argue about it. This analysis draws on the largest database of F1 social conversation ever assembled: over 100 million posts across 247,000 fan accounts.
Why people think F1 has a toxicity problem
The concern came to a head in 2021 with the championship battle between Hamilton and Verstappen, a rivalry that spilled off the track and onto social media as team and driver fandoms clashed. The threats received by Nicholas Latifi after his championship-influencing crash at the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix showed how a single race incident can trigger sustained online abuse aimed at drivers, teams and race officials.
Max Verstappen has called for social platforms to build better systems to curb abuse. Carlos Sainz has urged established media outlets to help by reporting more evenly. Underneath it sits a perceived split between traditional fans and newcomers, which has created its own tension about how F1 should be enjoyed and discussed. Dipping into social media around a controversial race certainly feels combative. The question is whether the data supports it.
What do we mean by “toxic”?
Seven traits, each a pattern of behaviour rather than a single angry post.
Discrimination
Prejudicial behaviour targeting individuals for their identity rather than their F1 views.
“Why is she even talking about F1?”
Targeted harassment
Organised hostility aimed at specific people, intended to force them out of F1 discussion.
“Let’s ratio this post so they know to keep their mouth shut in the future.”
General negativity
Persistent pessimism about the sport, usually paired with automatic opposition to any change.
“F1 is dead. It’s barely even a sport now.”
Tribal hostility
Aggression rooted in team or driver allegiance, directed at opposing fan groups.
“DTS fangirls aren’t real fans.”
Reactive aggression
Disproportionate hostility in response to a post about a driver, team or decision.
“Typical biased fanboy nonsense.”
Gatekeeping
Restricting who is allowed to take part, by dismissing new fans in the name of tradition.
“You can’t love F1 if you’ve never heard of Senna.”
Malicious narratives
Deliberate spread of inflammatory theories about incidents and stewarding decisions.
“The FIA is clearly rigging the championship.”
Has F1 conversation actually become more toxic?
Yes, and it has become far more positive at the same time. Neutral commentary is what disappeared.
Negative conversation went from 8% of F1 posts in 2016 to 20% in 2024. Over the same period positive conversation went from 23% to 40%. The share that vanished is neutral: 69% of F1 conversation was neutral in 2016 against 40% in 2024. The fanbase did not turn nasty so much as it stopped being detached.
Source: Buzz Radar analysis of posts from X/Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube. Labels are the published figures. The 2021 figures sum to 105% in the source report, so the 2021 bar is drawn to scale rather than to the labels.
What changed
- The audience got bigger and more invested. Mentions almost doubled between 2016 and 2024, from 9.88 million to 19.30 million.
- The platforms changed. TikTok arrived, influencers became a category of their own, and Twitter became X with different moderation rules.
- The demographics changed. As covered in part 2, the fanbase became younger and more geographically spread, bringing in people more comfortable expressing opinions online.
- The fandom became more tribal. Drive to Survive fan culture drove more emotional engagement with individual teams and drivers, which in turn drew a negative response from some traditional fans.
- 2024 had a specific spike. Negative conversation doubled that year, partly on first-half complaints that races were boring under continued Verstappen dominance, the same mechanism we identified in part 1.
What causes toxic conversation in F1?
Rivalries and race incidents account for 60% of it between them.
Source: Buzz Radar analysis of social media conversation from the 2023 F1 season.
Rivalry
The rivalry between teams and drivers is the most consistent driver of toxic commentary across the whole dataset. Its persistence suggests it is structural to fan discourse rather than tied to any one season.
Controversial race incidents
More than a quarter of toxicity attaches to specific incidents. Across 2023 the focus moved with events, including a spike in toxic comments during the Qatar Grand Prix relating to driver welfare.
Reaction to major announcements
Team name changes, new race locations and perceived problems with stewarding decisions all produce short, sharp spikes.
Arguments about the direction of F1
Changes to race formats and a perception of increasing commercial focus underpin much of the sustained criticism.
Accusations of bias
Inflamed above all by the end of the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, this is a constant underlying theme, particularly around driver favouritism and race incidents.
Which events drove the most toxic conversation?
Abu Dhabi 2021 is the high watermark, and nothing since has come close.
| Rank | Event |
|---|---|
| 1 | Abu Dhabi GP last lap, Hamilton against Verstappen (2021) |
| 2 | British GP qualifying (2022) |
| 3 | British GP sprint, Hamilton against Verstappen (2021) |
| 4 | Hungarian GP qualifying chaos (2021) |
| 5 | Italian GP crash, Hamilton against Verstappen (2021) |
| 6 | Bahrain GP Grosjean fireball (2020) |
| 7 | Brazilian GP DRS penalty, Hamilton (2021) |
| 8 | Russian GP weather concerns (2021) |
| 9 | Hungarian GP wet build-up (2022) |
| 10 | Brazilian GP qualifying tensions (2021) |
Seven of the top ten come from a single season. The 2020 to 2021 championship battle still casts a long shadow over F1’s online discourse, and the Abu Dhabi finale remains the single largest catalyst for heated debate in the dataset. Recent seasons have produced their own flashpoints without matching that intensity. The evidence suggests 2021 changed how fans argue about racing incidents, not just what they argued about that year.
Is this really about new fans against traditional fans?
Partly. The friction is real, and it runs in one direction more than the other.
The incoming demographic has created friction as traditional fans, resistant to change, see the sport they love becoming unfamiliar or discussed in ways they find alienating. “Typical Drive to Survive fan” has become dismissive shorthand for a generation of viewers whose enthusiasm takes a different form.
| Traditional fans | New fans |
|---|---|
| More likely to be male | More likely to be female |
| More likely to be 35 or over | More likely to be younger |
| Discovered F1 through TV or inherited it from family | Discovered F1 through Drive to Survive or social content |
| Engages on X, news site comments and Reddit | Engages by sharing memes and content on TikTok and Instagram |
| Watches Drive to Survive but finds it sensationalist | More likely to be based in the US |
So why does F1 social media feel so toxic?
Because you are not shown a representative sample. You are shown the most engaging one.
Algorithms push drama to the top of the timeline. Outrage drives replies, and posts with more engagement are shown first, so toxic comments are often seen before neutral or positive ones.
The platform landscape changed. X has different moderation and verification rules from pre-2022 Twitter, and some fans feel emboldened to post hostile comments because there is less policing.
Negativity sticks. People notice and remember hostile comments more than supportive ones, and negative posts attract more reactions and shares, reinforcing their visibility.
Toxicity travels faster. Research consistently shows negative and divisive content spreads further and faster than positive content, which makes it feel more dominant than it is.
Toxicity has risen. The bigger movement in the data is that F1 stopped being a sport people discussed neutrally.
What happens next?
The risk is not individual drivers. It is the scale and intensity of the fanbases arriving with them.
Our AI detected patterns in IndyCar’s online discourse that we expect to appear in F1 as the sport expands into regions with passionate sporting cultures. Agustín Canapino brought a large Argentine fanbase to IndyCar in 2023, and the way that fanbase interacted with the existing community shows how fan dynamics can spiral. Toxic conversation spiked across the 2023 and 2024 seasons. Both Callum Ilott and Théo Pourchaire received threats after race incidents, and when Pourchaire’s incident at the Detroit Grand Prix happened, negative sentiment towards him spiked 224% above normal levels. Alongside it ran a significant volume of conversation from regional fans accusing media outlets of discriminating against Canapino fans.
Why new fanbases can spike toxic comments
- Social platforms have relaxed moderation.
- Algorithms amplify controversial content.
- Different regional and demographic fandoms can trigger cultural clashes.
- F1’s global reach magnifies the potential impact.
We saw early warning signs in F1 itself. Analysis of the discourse around Franco Colapinto’s six races in 2024 shows spikes in toxic conversation, and discussion of him potentially taking the Alpine seat generated waves of coordinated attacks from Argentinian fans. Through no fault of his own, a driver in that position introduces a more intense element to the F1 fan community.
Our predictive modelling suggested F1 could see a 10% to 30% increase in toxic fan interactions over the following 36 months. That is a manageable problem if teams, drivers and governing bodies plan for it, and a reputational one if they wait for it.
How we analysed F1 audiences
Posts were collated from X/Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube, cleaned, then classified against the seven toxicity traits above using our machine-learning models with human analyst review. Event-level figures count conversations containing toxic phrases and keywords.
This report was published in February 2025. The predictions above cover the 36 months from that date and have not been restated here.
Frequently asked questions
Has the F1 fanbase become more toxic?
Yes, but positive conversation has grown faster. Negative conversation rose from 8% of posts in 2016 to 20% in 2024, while positive conversation rose from 23% to 40%. In 2024 there were two positive posts for every negative one.
What counts as toxic conversation?
Seven traits: discrimination, targeted harassment, general negativity, tribal hostility, reactive aggression, gatekeeping and malicious narratives. Each is a pattern of behaviour, which separates hostility from ordinary criticism of the sport.
What causes toxic conversation in F1?
Team and driver rivalries account for 32%, controversial race incidents 28%, accusations of bias 18%, rule and technical regulation changes 17%, nationalistic sentiment 4% and environmental concerns 1%.
Which F1 event generated the most toxic conversation?
The last lap of the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, by a clear margin, in a dataset covering 2016 to 2024.
Why does F1 social media feel more toxic than the data says?
Algorithms surface high-engagement content first and outrage drives engagement, moderation rules on X changed after 2022, negativity bias makes hostile posts more memorable, and negative content spreads further and faster.
Is F1 toxicity expected to increase?
Our February 2025 modelling suggested a 10% to 30% increase in toxic fan interactions over the following 36 months, driven by new regional fanbases arriving as the sport expands.
Read the full report
The PDF version of “Has the F1 fanbase become more toxic?” includes the full toxicity framework, the event-level analysis and the IndyCar predictive modelling.
Audience intelligence for motorsport
We have a team dedicated to motorsport, alongside our life sciences and technology work.
For teams
Turn casual viewers into passionate fans through audience intelligence and data-driven content strategy.
- Understand your fanbase demographics and behaviours
- Create content that resonates with different fan segments
- Track fan sentiment and engagement in real time
For sponsors
Turn sponsorship investment into lasting brand value through audience intelligence and partnership insight.
- Measure and optimise sponsorship performance
- Identify the right partnership opportunities
- Track competitor sponsorship effectiveness
- Part 1Have we reached peak F1?
- Part 2Does F1 need Drive to Survive?
- Part 3Has the F1 fanbase become more toxic?