Johnny Herbert Hits Back at Abuse from Dutch Fans Over Alleged Bias Claims

Former Formula One driver and pundit Johnny Herbert has responded forcefully to online abuse he received from Dutch fans after publicly criticising Max Verstappen, rejecting accusations that British commentators systematically favour drivers such as Lewis Hamilton. The three-time grand prix winner, who was removed from his role as an FIA steward before the 2025 season, described the volume and tone of the messages directed at him as the worst he has encountered and pointed out what he sees as a clear double standard.

Herbert had served as an FIA steward since 2010. His position became contentious during the 2024 Mexican Grand Prix, when he was part of the panel that handed Verstappen a 20-second penalty. He later compounded the situation by giving an interview to a gambling website in which he described the Dutch driver’s approach as “harsh” and driven by a “horrible mindset.” As the championship battle between Verstappen and Lando Norris intensified, criticism of Herbert grew louder and more personal. Accusations of bias toward the British driver Norris, and by extension toward British competitors in general, became a recurring theme among some supporters.

Dismissal from Steward Role and Subsequent Reaction

Shortly before the 2025 season-opening Australian Grand Prix, Herbert was informed that he would no longer serve as a steward. The FIA cited his continuing work as a media analyst as “incompatible” with the impartial requirements of the role. Herbert has consistently dismissed suggestions of bias, describing claims that “the Verstappens [Max and Jos] keep intimating” as “absolutely ridiculous.”

In the aftermath he found himself the target of sustained online abuse. Speaking to Vision4Sport, he identified the primary source without hesitation. “That’s easy! The Dutch fans who took issue with me questioning Max Verstappen,” he said. “Actually, they weren’t just Dutch. They were from other countries as well: ‘Death to Herbert.’ They were the worst. They accuse me of being biased. They still do to Martin Brundle. They say, ‘You’re biased to Lewis Hamilton.’ Well, we are British – and Lewis is a Brit. You’re Dutch and you support Max and you’re saying we’re biased, but you want us to support Max. They can’t have it both ways. Of course we are going to support a British driver, but it’s objective. We are wowed by the Flying Dutchman too. If England were playing Holland in football, of course I’m going to support England.”

Broader Defence of British Commentary

Herbert has addressed the bias question on previous occasions. In the weeks after his removal as a steward he argued that a British broadcaster naturally tends to take a closer interest in British drivers, drawing a parallel with national sporting events. “Sky have been getting it as well, but they’re a goddamn British broadcaster!” he said. “So, you’re going to favour your own British drivers. What happens for instance when the football World Cup happens? Will you support your team? Yes, absolutely. I don’t see any difference from that point of view.”

His former Sky Sports colleague Martin Brundle has offered a slightly different perspective. Speaking on a Sky podcast in 2024, Brundle rejected the idea that the channel’s Formula One coverage systematically favours British drivers. “I don’t think we do,” he said. “When I watch the Olympics or the World Cup or the European Cup, obviously, your commentators are fervently pro whichever country they’re from. I don’t think we do that. I like to think we’re pretty balanced. I really do.” Brundle added that negative remarks tend to travel further than positive ones. “You can say 1,000 positive things about somebody and one negative will get back to them and their fans get onto it, or their family and friends tell them. And I get a few cool, sideways glances sometimes. Nobody ever comes up to you and says, ‘Thank you very much for what you said about us.’”

Context of a Polarised Title Fight

The intensity of the reaction to Herbert’s comments has to be understood against the backdrop of a closely fought and emotionally charged championship. Verstappen’s contests with Norris generated strong feelings on all sides, and officials or pundits who intervened—whether through penalties or public analysis—often found themselves caught in the crossfire. Herbert’s dual role as both a steward and a media figure made him particularly exposed once he chose to speak critically about Verstappen’s racecraft.

The language directed at him, including the phrase “Death to Herbert,” crossed clearly into personal abuse. Herbert’s decision to highlight the nationality of many of those messages was intended to underline what he regards as inconsistency: fans who demand strict neutrality from British commentators while themselves displaying open allegiance to their own driver. His football analogy was offered as a straightforward illustration of ordinary sporting loyalty rather than evidence of professional misconduct.

Differing Views on Broadcast Neutrality

The contrast between Herbert’s position and Brundle’s is instructive. Herbert accepts that a degree of national preference is natural and comparable to coverage of other major sports. Brundle maintains that Formula One commentary on Sky has largely avoided the overt partisanship common in Olympic or World Cup broadcasting and that the criticism received from multiple directions is itself evidence of relative balance. Both men, however, acknowledge that negative coverage travels further and generates stronger reactions than praise.

Herbert’s removal from the steward roster closed one chapter of his involvement with the sport’s officialdom while leaving him free to continue media work. His subsequent remarks suggest he remains unrepentant about the substance of his earlier criticism of Verstappen and unwilling to accept the bias narrative advanced by some of the driver’s supporters. At the same time he has been careful to state that he recognises Verstappen’s talent, describing the Dutchman as a driver capable of producing performances that leave observers “wowed.”

The episode forms part of a longer-running tension within Formula One between the expectation of strict neutrality from officials and commentators and the reality of national and personal loyalties among fans and media. Herbert’s experience illustrates how quickly that tension can escalate when a high-profile penalty and outspoken analysis coincide during a tight championship battle. By speaking publicly about the abuse he received and the reasoning behind his views, he has added a further layer to an already polarised conversation.

As the 2025 season progressed without him in a steward’s role, the arguments over bias, nationality and acceptable criticism continued to surface whenever British voices analysed Verstappen’s performances. Herbert’s own contribution to that debate remains the clear assertion that supporting a driver from one’s own country is neither surprising nor inherently unprofessional, and that accusations of bias ring hollow when they come from fans who are themselves openly partisan. Whether that stance resonates more widely is likely to depend on the ongoing tone of coverage and the reactions it continues to provoke.