Eight years ago, the FIA solidified its decision to purge grid girls from all Formula One races in a masterclass of outrage optics. Eight years later, the visible symptoms of sexism have been erased, but a deeper autopsy reveals that the disease of underrepresentation is still rotting the sport from the inside out.

I 've had this draft sitting in my bin for months because, honestly... part of me was like "Is it really that deep? Am I actually about to write a manifesto about girls holding umbrellas in 2026?" But every time I see a "Bring grid girls back!" or a comment implying pre-2018 F1 was better because of the grid girls, or a patronizing "F1 for Girlies" TikTok, I realize the 2018 ban was kind of a flop.

I wasn't an F1 fan when the decision to remove grid girls was made in 2018, but looking at the debate now, and the way women are still treated in the paddock, it's clear the FIA's solution was a band-aid that missed the wound entirely... As a younger fan who started watching F1 after the grid girl era, I don't have a vested interest in defending 'tradition.' My concern is simple: The FIA made a move to look progressive but failed to create a future where young female fans like me see ourselves represented in the paddock in meaningful roles.

We've spent eight years arguing in circles: one side says it's objectification, the other says it's "tradition" and choice. Both sides are kind of missing the point. The problem wasn't the grid girls; the problem was that for decades, the only women who were visible on the main stage were seen as eye candy.

So, here's my third perspective. The one that actually treats us like fans and professionals instead of PR problems swept under the rug, while I also address why exactly the issue is deeper than just a ceremonial role being removed.

The 2018 Ban: A Masterclass in Lazy PR

For decades, grid girls were just part of the furniture. They were the "glamour" - holding umbrellas, looking good for the sponsors, and being, well, eye candy. This made women themselves and their bodies a promotional product alongside the cars, establishing their visibility in the paddock primarily as objects of appeal. It was a 1960s marketing tactic that somehow survived into the 21st century because... F1 isn't exactly known for changing quickly. But by 2018, the PR pressure got too high. The FIA and Formula One Group (led by Liberty Media, which took over in 2017) realized that having women as purely decorative props was a bad look for a global brand trying to modernize. So, they did the easiest thing possible: they hit the delete button.

In 2018, the decision was announced. Grid kids (aspiring young karters/drivers) would take over, and grid girls would be banned from all F1 races. The official statement focused on a desire to align with "modern-day societal norms" and the belief that the practice was "clearly at odds with our brand values." They essentially swapped the models for "Grid Kids" (which is cute, don't get me wrong) and acted like they solved sexism overnight.

This was a masterclass in outrage optics. By removing the most visible symptom of sexism, the FIA successfully signaled that they were "progressive" and sponsor-friendly. In addition to this, by removing the grid girls without actually replacing them with any other visible female presence, the FIA just made women invisible on the main stage. They cleaned up the optics for sponsors, but they didn't actually do anything to fix the fact that the paddock was still a massive boys' club. They took away the umbrellas but didn't give us the mics!

It was the ultimate lazy fix - removing the symptom so they didn't have to spend money or effort curing the actual disease.

The Two Sides of the Debate

Whenever this topic comes up (which is very often), the internet immediately splits into two camps that just end up shouting at each other. It's honestly exhausting to watch, but let's be real, these two sides are not the same.

PRO-RETENTION: Usually led by the "anti-woke" brigade and people who think F1 peaked in 1976. Their argument is always about "tradition" and the fact that the women actually wanted to be there and were getting paid well. It's a lot of "you're ruining the sport" and "the feminists are taking over" nonsense. They'll argue about choice and tradition, but their argument is so watered down by insults and buzzwords that it's hard to take them seriously. Also, these people just like seeing women in skimpy outfits next to cars.

Hey, at least you guys had Max Verstappen and Nico Hülkenberg advocating for pro-retention smh.

"It would be a pity if they took the eye jewelry away from the grid" - NICO HüLKENBERG

I'm not joking LOL.

"The grid girls must stay" - MAX VERSTAPPEN

THE "BUT WHAT ABOUT CHEERLEADERS?" EXCUSE: One thing that always gets me is when people compare F1 to the NFL or the UFC. "The NFL has cheerleaders, why can't F1 have grid girls?" Because F1 isn't a gendered sport, that's why! Men and women don't play in separate leagues in the paddock; we have the same engineering degrees and the same licenses. By treating women like a sideline attraction (ring girls) in a sport where we should be starting players (engineers/drivers), F1 isn't just following tradition; it's actively gatekeeping. You don't see a ring girl in the middle of a corporate office, so why is it okay on the grid of a multi-billion-dollar tech company?

Cheerleading is also considered to be a legitimate - albeit heavily female-dominated - sport. It requires skills in gymnastics, acrobatics, and dance. However, the NFL uses these cheerleaders and their talents as ornaments. Like grid girls, their roles are decorative. Just because the NFL does it, does that mean F1 can do it too? No... Where's the common sense?

ANTI-RETENTION: Now, this side actually makes sense. Most people here are chill and have great points about how having grid girls on the grid is outdated and demeaning. They celebrated the ban because they wanted to stop the sexualization of women in the paddock. But here's the thing: while they were right about the problem, they couldn't see the bigger picture. They were so focused on trying to get rid of the bad visibility that they didn't stop to think about what would be replacing it. They didn't realize the FIA would leave us with little to no prime-time visibility at all

BOTH SIDES MAKE SENSE, BUT NEITHER ADDRESSES THE REAL ISSUE: While both arguments contain understandable truths - yes, objectification is wrong, and yes, the women had agency - neither side addresses the core issue.

All they're doing is arguing about the symptom of sexism rather than the disease. The anti-retention side saw the grid girl role as the problem, while the pro-retention side defended the individual women. Neither touches the deeper question: Why were grid girls the only prominent female presence during race day, and what does that signal about F1's internal culture?

We're arguing about whether women should hold boards when we should be arguing about why they aren't the ones making the calls on the pit wall.

Grid Girls Weren't the Problem, the System Was

Here is the part where I might lose some people, but stay with me: The grid girls weren't the disease of sexism in F1, but rather the most visible symptom. Motorsport historically limited women's presence to models, hospitality, PR roles, girlfriends or WAG stereotypes, and influencers. Meanwhile, the critical high-class positions such as engineers, strategists, mechanics, and drivers remained overwhelmingly male.

By putting women almost exclusively in ornamental roles, F1 was sending a massive, long-term signal to every girl watching at home: Talent, skill, and strategic thought belong to the men; glamour and visual appeal belong to the women.

Now, I know what I said could seem a bit... eye-brow raising. "If grid girls shied away young girls from aspiring to be in technical roles, then why are there still girls in karting and women working in the sport?"
This doesn't mean the system completely repelled all female talent. Dedicated young women will always find their way into karting and technical roles, often looking up to male heroes like Ayrton Senna or Lewis Hamilton. That is not a failure, but it demonstrates a missed opportunity.

Studies consistently show that visible role models are crucial for aspiration. Young people are naturally drawn to figures who reflect their own identity, making it easier to picture themselves in that role. Limiting the number of female technicians, strategists, and leaders seen on screen inherently limits the number of young girls who will see a realistic path for themselves. Grid girls were not the cause of this ceiling, but they were the sport's highest-profile visual confirmation that the technical and strategic side of motorsport was implicitly reserved for men.

The FIA can't be talking about encouraging young girls to enter karting and STEM and not show any of those role models on TV...

THE OPTICAL ILLUSION OF INCLUSION: The grid girl role allowed F1 to appear diverse and glamorous without having to actually invest in the challenging and expensive work of changing its hiring practices, addressing the paddock culture, or funding grassroots programs for female drivers. The entire debate was a distraction from the fact that F1 needed a structural change, not just a new form policy.

This is why the removal was a band-aid: it wiped away the visible symptom of sexism but did absolutely nothing to cure the systemic disease of underrepresentation in the high-status, technical jobs.

LET'S BE CLEAR: I'm not "saving" the women who were grid girls. They were professionals doing a job they were hired for, and they deserve respect. My issue isn't with them, it's with the suits in the boardrooms who decided that was the only way a woman should be seen on Sunday. It's the same energy as the guys who gatekeep the sport by asking you to "name 5 WDCs before 2000 without googling" the second you say you're a fan. They've spent decades training women to think that if they weren't eye jewelry, then they didn't belong in the shot.

Visibility vs. Whatever Skysports Halo was Doing

The reason the 2018 ban feels like such a failure is that it left a vacuum, and instead of filling that space with stories of engineers or drivers, F1 marketing has pivoted to patronisation. Think back to the Sky Sports Halo mess we saw late last year LOL. Instead of talking to us like fans who actually understand the technical side of the sport, we got "lil sis" content and TikToks about matcha lattes and "hot girl walks" to explain how sport works.

It feels so condescending! It's like the sport is saying, "Okay, we took away the girls in heels, so now we'll talk to you like you're 5 years old because you only care about aesthetics and sparkles, right?" No. This is exactly why my third perspective matters. We don't need a pink version of F1, football, or any other sport to understand it. We just want to see women like Hannah Schmitz and Laura Müller in the main broadcast. We want to see the female karting stars of tomorrow standing on the grid today.

By removing grid girls but replacing them with aesthetic TikTok marketing, the FIA hasn't actually moved past the idea that women are just decorative fans. They just traded the umbrellas and skimpy clothing for a ring light.

The Third Perspective

So, what's the better solution? Instead of just hitting the delete button on the grid girl role, the FIA should have evolved it. Imagine if we kept the ceremonial glamour of the pre-race buildup, but actually used that prime-time TV slot for something useful.

HERE'S MY VISION: Instead of hiring models from agencies, give those spots to the next generation of the sport. I'm talking about engineering students, young mechanics, and the top girls (and boys!) in karting. Give them professional team gear and, most importantly, give them a mic. Imagine a girl standing on the grid who just won a regional karting title or a student who's the top of her class in aerodynamics. If the announcer spent 30 seconds asking them about their career goals instead of the camera doing a glamour shot, you've suddenly turned a decorative prop into a role model. We'd be keeping the tradition of the grid, but removing the objectification and replacing it with representation. It's about showing the world that women belong in the paddock because of their talent, not just their aesthetic.

Like a smart person once said,

"I think it's fine to have grid girls as long as they are not dressed like prostitutes. The demeaning is not in them standing there, but them standing there as eye candy in the worst possible way."

Yeah, But...

No solution is perfect, and mine surely has a few. Not all of these potential flaws are unable to be fixed; however, implementing this would require a far greater investment in effort and strategy than the FIA's simple ban. I can already hear the comments, so let's address some:

1. "THIS COULD LOOK LIKE TOKENISM"
This is a valid concern. If the grid roles are given to aspiring women and minorities purely for symbolic visibility without actual support, it becomes an empty gesture. This could be tokenism if the FIA is lazy (which, let's be real, they usually are). That's why this can't just be a 15-minute photo op. This role should be a bridge. These should be a part of a larger, funded initiative that includes scholarships, guaranteed shadowing days with a team, and access to networking events with team principals and technical staff. If it's a dead-end, it's a prop. If it's a path to a career? That's a game-changer.

2. "THIS IS EXPENSIVE"
F1 is a multi-billion-dollar industry; the cost of ensuring a diverse and talented future workforce is minimal compared to the cost of social stagnation. They spend more on the motorhome's flowers than it would cost to fund a global scholarship program for these ambassadors (hyperbole, but you get what I mean). Investing in your future workforce isn't "charity," it's smart business.

3. "GENDER OPTICS (WHY PUT WOMEN BACK IN AN ORNAMENTAL ROLE?"
In recent times, the F1 pre-race show viewership has significantly spiked, shifting towards team drama, fluff, and interviews. Why not take advantage of this coverage switch and massive audience? By putting aspirational young people (of all genders!) on the grid, you change the visual narrative from "boys' club" to "talent club."

The Symptom	The PR Band-Aid	The Alianna Protocol
Grid Girls	Grid Kids	Junior Engineers/Drivers
Aesthetic Role	Symbolic Role	Educational Pathway
"Decoration"	"Inspiration"	"Accreditation"

GAZETTE PROPOSAL #002-B

Why the Removal Didn't Fix Anything

The removal of grid girls cleaned up the aesthetics of the paddock, but the deep-seated issues that led to their creation, systemic sexism and the lack of structural support for women, remain largely untouched. This is the proof that the band-aid failed.

Even though grid girls are now nowhere to be seen since the ban in 2018 (wait, that rhymed), women are still stereotyped as girlfriends, influencers, PR staff, or fans who "don't know the racing" or are only watching for the "hot drivers." No structural changes followed the removal, and while initiatives like F1 Academy and individual team efforts are valuable, the 2018 policy change itself didn't guarantee better representation or support. The result was simply removing more women from the public eye.

"By removing the grid girl, the FIA didn't cure the sexism; they simply removed the visible rash while the infection moved deeper into the bone."

Yes, we now have highly respectable, visible women like strategists Hannah Schmitz (Red Bull Principal Strategy Engineer), Bernadette "Bernie" Collins (former Aston Martin Strategy Engineer, now Strategy Analyst for Sky Sports), and race engineer Laura Müller (Haas' Esteban Ocon's Race Engineer, becoming the first full-time female race engineer in history!). They are essential role models (♥). However, their visibility is the exception, not the rule. The pipeline problem at the grassroots level still remains, and the overall percentage of women in technical leadership, mechanics, and driving roles has not changed significantly enough to reflect a genuine commitment to equity.

The grid girls were a symptom. By banning them without replacing their visibility with a positive, aspirational alternative, the FIA simply eliminated a symptom while leaving the disease (structural failure and cultural stereotyping) to fester quietly. The wound is still bleeding; it's just covered up now.

Conclusion

The removal of grid girls in 2018 was a moment of symbolic progress, but as we've seen, it succeeded in cleaning up the optics without addressing the underlying organizational failure within motorsport. The FIA opted for the easiest, most superficial decision, proving your commitment to equity is only skin-deep if it doesn't require any genuine investment.

The core problem was never the grid girls themselves; it was the narrow lane the sport forced them into, limiting their presence to either "sexy model" or "not there at all." By eliminating the visual symbol of sexism, the FIA failed its chance to replace it with a positive, aspirational symbol. The kind that inspires future engineers and drivers.

My third perspective - the scholarships, the visibility for young talent, the professional grid roles - demonstrates that there is a path that achieves both ethical standards and positive visibility. We can stop being confined to two distinct sides of an argument and start diving deeper into the bigger issue. I'm not being centrist just to be centrist, lol, but clearly, there was a much better way that respects the logical concerns of both sides.

The Band-Aid solution was quick and painless for the FIA. It was a slap-on fix that immediately hid the public bleeding of sexism. But a band-aid eventually saturates, forcing us to rip it off later and face the same, unhealed wound. My alternative, the "stitches," requires careful, patient needlework and investment, and yes, it's painful and complex to execute. However, this approach doesn't just hide the problem; it tackles the damaged tissues, stitching the pipeline back together to ensure the wound finally closes. F1 chose the illusion of progress over the hard, necessary work of structural healing.

Okay, I got a bit too serious there, but anyway, I'm finally stopping this here before this turns into a trilogy (possible foreshadowing?) No question about opinions for this one... But i'm still always open for discussion. If I can find a place to host it. LMAO.

Related post about F1: Academy, as this is a sister post, lol, and to see the full scope of my argument :P.