Formula 1’s decision to retain the Qatar and Abu Dhabi Grands Prix as the final two rounds of the 2026 season is facing renewed questions over safety following reports of an attack on Riyadh airport. Despite recent assurances from F1 president and CEO Stefano Domenicali that the championship would conclude according to its existing calendar, continuing tensions across the Middle East have revived an uncomfortable debate: should commercial commitments ever take precedence over the safety of those involved in the sport?
Reports of an attack attributed to the Houthis against the airport in Saudi Arabia’s capital, with initial information indicating 12 confirmed deaths and more than 300 injuries, have added to concerns about the regional situation. This does not mean that Qatar or Abu Dhabi face an immediate threat, nor does it establish that either Grand Prix cannot take place safely. It does, however, underline why Formula 1’s security assessments must remain responsive to events rather than treating previous assurances as a permanent guarantee.
F1 Qatar and Abu Dhabi GP safety questions return after Riyadh reports
Two weeks ago, Stefano Domenicali appeared to have settled the debate over the conclusion of the Formula 1 season. The championship would proceed with its original plans for the Qatar and Abu Dhabi Grands Prix, bringing the campaign to an end in the Middle East despite the geopolitical tensions affecting the Persian Gulf.
That decision came as something of a surprise. The international situation had already forced Formula 1 to revise its schedule, and the possibility of returning to Imola had become sufficiently concrete to involve several areas of the championship’s logistical organisation.
Nevertheless, Domenicali’s assurances, also reported by ScuderiaFans, appeared to bring discussions about alternative venues to an end. At least, that was the impression at the time.
Developments in the region have since brought the issue back into focus. The crisis has not been resolved within a matter of days, as US President Donald Trump initially hoped following American strikes against Iran. Instead, the conflict continues to generate consequences and maintain tensions across a strategically important area where Formula 1 intends to stage its final two races.
The reported attack on Riyadh airport provides another reason for concern. Although the Saudi capital is not itself hosting either of the remaining Grands Prix, it lies within the wider region affected by the current instability.
It would be wrong to assume that an incident in Riyadh automatically means an imminent danger exists at Lusail or Yas Marina. Equally, it would be difficult to justify treating a previously announced calendar decision as immune to further examination while regional circumstances continue to change.
The revised 2026 Formula 1 calendar currently places the Qatar Grand Prix on 29 November and the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix on 6 December, making the two events the final stops of the championship.
Why commercial contracts cannot be the only consideration
The central question is not whether an incident will necessarily occur during either Grand Prix. There is no reason to suggest that such an outcome is inevitable. The real issue is whether maintaining the calendar without further changes remains the most responsible approach when the geopolitical situation continues to evolve without offering clear guarantees of stability.
Safety in Formula 1 extends far beyond the drivers, even though they naturally attract most of the public attention. Mechanics, engineers, team principals, logistics specialists, other team employees, paddock personnel and spectators must also be considered.
Thousands of people travel between countries, pass through airports and stay in the territories hosting each race. Their protection requires careful consideration of the wider environment, not simply an assessment of conditions inside the circuit.
Commercial obligations inevitably form part of Formula 1’s planning. Agreements with promoters, contractual commitments and the economic interests surrounding major international events cannot simply be dismissed. However, none of those considerations should become an insurmountable obstacle when the protection of people is at stake.
The question is whether the championship is maintaining sufficient flexibility to respond if the situation deteriorates, rather than assuming that a decision announced several weeks earlier must remain unchanged.
Ferrari and F1 have already experienced a major calendar change in 2026
Formula 1 has already demonstrated that an alternative venue can be found when circumstances demand it. The Bahrain Grand Prix was relocated to the Sepang International Circuit in Malaysia, where the race took place just seven days before the Singapore Grand Prix.
The operation was supported by the promoters and driven forward under the influence of Liberty Media. Despite the considerable organisational demands, the event was successfully staged, allowing fans to enjoy an entertaining race at a traditional circuit that delivered a spectacle comparable to the originally scheduled event.
The Malaysian weekend also presented Ferrari with an unusual strategic challenge. Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc encountered difficult conditions at Sepang, where tyre decisions played a significant role in the outcome. The Scuderia eventually recovered to third and fourth after its initial gamble, with the seven-time world champion subsequently discussing the team’s approach. The full circumstances are covered in our report on Lewis Hamilton’s Ferrari strategy discussions following the Sepang race.
Of course, moving a Grand Prix is never straightforward. Organising an international Formula 1 event requires considerable time, resources, transport arrangements and coordination between numerous parties. It would be unrealistic to suggest that every problem can be solved simply by choosing another circuit.
Nevertheless, the experience at Sepang demonstrated that flexibility is more than a theoretical possibility. Under the right circumstances, Formula 1 can reorganise a major event and preserve a race that would otherwise have been unable to take place at its intended venue.
That raises an obvious question about Qatar and Abu Dhabi. If alternative circuits are available and sufficient organisational capacity exists, why should the possibility of another adjustment be excluded before the situation has become critical?
Imola had already emerged as a possible solution during earlier discussions. Even if that option ultimately proves impractical, the championship should remain willing to evaluate alternatives rather than waiting until an emergency makes any change more difficult.
Is Formula 1 protecting its Middle East calendar at any cost?
There is a growing impression that preserving the current calendar is closely connected to protecting the commercial agreements and revenues associated with the Gulf Grands Prix.
That impression does not establish that Formula 1 is neglecting safety. The full details of the championship’s internal assessments are not publicly known, and it would be inappropriate to claim that security considerations have been ignored.
However, it is reasonable to question whether contractual obligations are receiving greater weight than caution, particularly when confirmation of the remaining races comes against a continuing backdrop of international uncertainty.
The distinction between managing a risk and ignoring one lies partly in the willingness to reconsider an earlier decision when circumstances change. A position adopted two weeks ago should not become untouchable simply because it has already been communicated publicly.
If subsequent developments require further checks, Formula 1’s leadership has a responsibility to carry them out. It should also explain transparently which considerations support the decision to proceed and what measures are planned to protect everyone involved.
The issue has already attracted attention in relation to the sport’s leading drivers, including the wider questions raised by Lewis Hamilton about Formula 1’s Qatar and Abu Dhabi concerns.
Maintaining public confidence requires more than repeating that the races remain scheduled. It requires demonstrating that the decision continues to reflect an appropriate assessment of the circumstances as they develop.
Could Formula 1 still move the Qatar or Abu Dhabi Grand Prix?
Changing the calendar again at this stage of the season would undoubtedly be complicated. Teams, organisers, broadcasters and logistics providers have already made extensive preparations, while the commercial implications of another relocation would also need to be addressed.
It is equally possible that the regional situation will remain sufficiently stable for both Grands Prix to proceed without difficulty. That is the outcome everyone should hope for.
But hope cannot replace a proper assessment of risk. Nor should the need to honour financial agreements prevent Formula 1 from considering alternative solutions if the circumstances justify them.
The championship frequently presents itself as a technologically advanced global organisation capable of managing complex operations with extraordinary precision. Its ability to coordinate racing, engineering, logistics and strategy across multiple continents is central to that identity.
Perhaps the present circumstances offer an opportunity to demonstrate that the same organisational capabilities extend to decisions involving human safety rather than sporting performance or commercial returns.
A world championship can conclude at a circuit different from the one originally planned. Contracts can be renegotiated, transport arrangements reorganised and races relocated. The safety of those who make the championship possible, however, should never be treated as a variable that can be sacrificed to preserve the schedule.
F1 must remain prepared to reconsider its season finale
Nobody can predict with certainty how the situation in the Middle East will develop over the coming weeks. The hope remains that Qatar and Abu Dhabi will host their Grands Prix without any problems, allowing the 2026 Formula 1 season to conclude as planned.
Yet the latest developments, combined with a crisis that continues to drag on, make a degree of concern unavoidable. Dismissing those concerns solely in the name of maintaining the championship calendar would risk overlooking the responsibility that comes with organising events on such a scale.
Formula 1 must know when to race, but it must also recognise when circumstances require it to stop, reconsider or at least investigate other possible venues.
The ultimate measure of responsible leadership is not whether every original commitment is fulfilled regardless of changing circumstances. It is whether the championship remains prepared to make difficult decisions when the safety of drivers, teams, personnel and spectators may depend on them.
Leave a Reply