Ferrari has missed another opportunity to win, and Fred Vasseur has pointed the finger at Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc. But after what happened at Monza, the controversy surrounding the 2026 Mexico City Grand Prix raises a much bigger question about the Ferrari team principal’s leadership. The problem is no longer simply how the drivers behave on track, but whether the Scuderia has someone capable of establishing clear rules and ensuring they are respected.
Ferrari continues to undermine its own chances. In Mexico, what could have been a one-two finish became yet another missed opportunity. Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton became involved in an excessively aggressive battle at precisely the moment when the team needed to manage an extremely favourable situation with composure. Max Verstappen took advantage, while Ferrari allowed a victory that had appeared within reach to slip away.
Yet the most important question goes beyond the confrontation between the two drivers. Where was Ferrari’s leadership when the situation began to unravel?
Fred Vasseur’s Ferrari leadership questioned after Mexico GP
Fred Vasseur’s comments following the Mexico City Grand Prix were particularly strong. The Ferrari team principal spoke of a lack of respect towards the Ferrari brand and the approximately 2,000 people working behind the scenes to put the team’s cars on track.
The principle expressed by the French manager is difficult to dispute. Formula 1 drivers do not compete solely for themselves. They represent an entire organisation, its sponsors and the work of hundreds of engineers, technicians and other professionals whose efforts make racing possible.
Fred Vasseur also acknowledged that the situation was getting out of hand and announced that he would speak with both drivers. His demand for respect following the Ferrari clash in Mexico reflected the seriousness of the situation.
Those are undoubtedly strong words. But they also raise an unavoidable question: has Fred Vasseur only now recognised the scale of the problem?
After all, the confrontation in Mexico did not emerge without warning. During the Italian Grand Prix at Monza, Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc had already become involved in an intense on-track battle that compromised Ferrari’s result.
On that occasion, Fred Vasseur had already addressed the issue, attempting to make it clear that the drivers were free to race one another, provided they did not damage the interests of the Scuderia. Evidently, however, those instructions were not sufficient to prevent another confrontation.
Ferrari needed action after Monza, not just another warning
Ferrari’s problem is not that two highly accomplished drivers want to beat each other. That is perfectly normal in Formula 1, particularly when both competitors believe they have the ability to fight for victories and championships.
Lewis Hamilton is a seven-time world champion, while Charles Leclerc has spent years pursuing his ambition of winning the title with Ferrari. Expecting either driver to voluntarily abandon those ambitions would be unrealistic.
That is precisely why the role of the team principal exists.
Following the events at Monza, Fred Vasseur should have established unmistakable rules of engagement, clarified the responsibilities of each driver and, most importantly, ensured that those rules would be respected.
Instead, Mexico produced another situation in which both drivers appeared primarily focused on their individual battle. The similarities with the previous confrontation have already raised concerns about Ferrari repeating its Monza mistakes at the Mexico Grand Prix.
Lewis Hamilton complained over the radio about his team-mate’s behaviour, also referring to agreements made before the start. Charles Leclerc, meanwhile, defended his manoeuvre and pointed out that Lewis Hamilton had also pushed the limits of acceptable racing behaviour.
The outcome was another internal controversy, with Ferrari indirectly creating an opportunity for Max Verstappen to benefit from the confrontation.
Calling the drivers into a meeting after the race is not, by itself, evidence that the situation is under control. Effective leadership means preventing the same problems from happening repeatedly, rather than simply reacting once the damage has already been done.
Does Ferrari lack the authority needed to manage two champions?
This brings the discussion to its most delicate point.
Ferrari appears to have two champions in its garage, but lacks an sufficiently authoritative figure capable of managing their competing ambitions.
That does not necessarily mean the team must appoint a permanent number one and number two driver. Such a hierarchy is not essential in every situation. What matters is that both drivers understand the limits they must respect and that the pit wall has enough authority to enforce those boundaries consistently.
In a successful Formula 1 team, drivers must know that they are permitted to fight for position, but also that an objective exists above their personal rivalry. For Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton, that objective must be Ferrari’s success.
The broader Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton season-long comparison provides a useful perspective on their internal competition, but individual performance cannot be allowed to overshadow the team’s collective interests.
This is not the first time Ferrari’s pit wall has appeared to struggle with race management. Questionable strategic decisions, ineffective communication and missed opportunities have contributed to the impression of a team that finds it difficult to convert technical potential into concrete results.
Fred Vasseur should be precisely the person capable of bringing order to such a situation. Instead, his reaction after Mexico almost gives the impression that the problem has caught him by surprise, despite the warning signs that had already emerged several races earlier.
Fred Vasseur’s smile with Toto Wolff contrasts with Ferrari’s problems
There is also an image that takes on particular significance when considered alongside Ferrari’s latest internal controversy.
While tensions between the two drivers were once again becoming a major issue for the Scuderia, Fred Vasseur was seen in an apparently relaxed atmosphere, talking and smiling with Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff.
There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with the Ferrari boss speaking to his Mercedes counterpart. Formula 1 team principals regularly interact, and a friendly exchange does not automatically reveal anything about how seriously they approach their responsibilities.
Nevertheless, from an image and perception standpoint, the contrast between that relaxed moment and the difficulties unfolding within Ferrari is striking.
The Maranello team needs leadership capable of projecting firmness, authority and, above all, a clear direction. It needs a management structure that can anticipate problems and intervene decisively, rather than one that appears to respond publicly only after another opportunity has been lost.
Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc share responsibility, but Fred Vasseur cannot avoid scrutiny
It would be unfair to place all the blame on Fred Vasseur. Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc are experienced professional racing drivers, and both must accept responsibility for the decisions they make on track.
The British driver cannot expect his team-mate to repeatedly give up opportunities to fight for position. Equally, the Monegasque cannot assume that every potential overtaking opportunity justifies taking risks that could compromise the team’s result.
Both drivers have legitimate sporting ambitions, but those ambitions must operate within a framework established by Ferrari’s leadership.
The responsibility for managing that framework ultimately belongs to the team principal.
If a similar situation occurs in Mexico after the warning signs at Monza, something has clearly failed to work as intended. Simply expressing anger or frustration after the race is unlikely to resolve the underlying problem.
The controversy has also highlighted the need for Ferrari to reconsider how it manages the Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc partnership as it prepares for future challenges.
Ferrari does not need only a competitive Formula 1 car. It also needs a sporting structure capable of managing its champions, making difficult decisions and ensuring that everyone follows a consistent approach.
Without those qualities, the same pattern risks continuing: Ferrari produces a car capable of fighting for victory, its two drivers become absorbed in their own battle, and the pit wall intervenes only when it is already too late.
Is Fred Vasseur the leader Ferrari needs to return to winning ways?
The events in Mexico have once again exposed a difficult reality for Ferrari. Having two ambitious and talented drivers should be an advantage, particularly when the car has the performance to compete at the front. Yet that advantage can quickly become a weakness when clear rules and effective leadership are missing.
Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc must both accept their responsibilities, but the Scuderia cannot continue relying on its drivers to resolve every disagreement themselves. The sporting management must establish a consistent framework that protects the team’s interests and prevents avoidable disputes from undermining its results.
Ultimately, the question is no longer only whether Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc can work together successfully.
It is whether Fred Vasseur is genuinely the leader this Ferrari team needs.
Leave a Reply