Massa is one of several former drivers employed by the F1 organisation in ambassadorial roles, with the job involving attending a certain number of races per season in logoed shirts and undertaking tasks such as meet and greets in the Paddock Club.
Others to have similar arrangements are Mika Hakkinen, Jacques Villeneuve and David Coulthard.
However, matters became complicated after Massa started a legal process against F1 and the FIA related to the 2008 world championship and the impact of the Singapore GP ‘Crashgate’ affair on the outcome.
As a former Ferrari driver and local favourite, Massa was due to attend this weekend’s Italian GP at Monza under his usual arrangement, with travel and hotel expenses taken care of by F1.
However, a source has confirmed that a conversation took place during which it was mutually agreed that being at a race as an F1 ambassador was not appropriate in the current circumstances, although it was also made clear that he can continue to come to any race as a private individual.
It’s understood that Massa himself may have recognised that his presence would inevitably trigger media interest that would have made it hard for him to move around the paddock.
Felipe Massa
Photo by: Alexander Trienitz / Motorsport Images
Massa lost 2008 the title to Lewis Hamilton on the final lap of his home race in Brazil, but the points he lost in Singapore – where he retired after dragging the fuel hose out of the Ferrari pits when he stopped during the safety car triggered by Nelson Piquet Jr’s crash – had a crucial impact.
Earlier this year, former F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone indicated that the Piquet saga was known within F1 and FIA circles before the end of the season, and an archive interview with the late FIA race director Charlie Whiting also emerged backed up that timing.
Last month, Massa’s lawyers wrote to FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem and FOM CEO Stefano Domenicali with a Letter Before Claim, stating that he was the “victim of a conspiracy”.
They suggested that Massa had lost millions in income, as well as suffering “moral” and “reputational” damages, as a result of the Singapore affair.
