Ferrari’s leadership problem may extend well beyond the rivalry between Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc. While both drivers are determined to compete without accepting a supporting role, the more fundamental concern at Maranello could be the absence of a clearly defined approach to driver management, responsibilities and decision-making. The question is not simply which driver is right, but who has the authority to establish and enforce the rules.
Ferrari faces a challenge that goes beyond the performance of its Formula 1 car. It concerns leadership, organisation and the management of internal hierarchies. The relationship between Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton has become one of the most widely discussed issues surrounding the team, but focusing exclusively on the drivers risks overlooking the responsibilities of those managing them.
The central question is straightforward: who sets the rules at Maranello?
During the latest episode of A Ruota Libera, dedicated to the 2026 Brazilian Grand Prix, we addressed precisely this issue. A Formula 1 team cannot simply place two elite drivers in its cars and allow results on the track to determine everything. It needs a structure, recognised authority and clearly defined objectives.
Above all, it needs someone prepared to make difficult decisions.
Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc: Two champions, but what are their roles at Ferrari?
Managing the relationship between Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton represents a particularly delicate challenge for Ferrari, especially given the different backgrounds and expectations of its two drivers.
On one side is Charles Leclerc, who has been one of the team’s leading figures for several years. The Monegasque driver knows the Ferrari environment extremely well and has built a significant part of his Formula 1 career at Maranello.
On the other is Lewis Hamilton, a seven-time world champion whose enormous experience and personality inevitably give him considerable influence within the organisation. The issue, therefore, is not simply determining which driver is faster. It is understanding the role for which Lewis Hamilton was recruited and the position Ferrari has actually assigned to each driver.
Was Lewis Hamilton brought to Maranello simply to drive the car and attempt to win? Or was his contribution also intended to extend to working methods, the experience accumulated during his years at Mercedes and a broader role in the team’s development? These are important questions because differing expectations can create misunderstandings and tensions, particularly when both drivers believe they have a legitimate claim to a leading position.
It would be unrealistic to expect a world champion of Lewis Hamilton’s standing to automatically accept the role of second driver. Equally, Ferrari cannot reasonably expect Charles Leclerc to surrender his established position within the team without discussion after spending so many years at Maranello.
These responsibilities and expectations should have been clarified from the beginning. The wider debate surrounding the relationship between Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc within Ferrari has made the importance of those distinctions increasingly apparent.
Ferrari does not necessarily need a number one driver – but it needs clear rules
One point deserves clarification: establishing a rigid hierarchy with a designated number one and number two driver is not necessarily the best solution.
Modern Formula 1 has demonstrated that two competitive drivers can coexist and contribute valuable championship points to the same team. However, that freedom must be supported by precise and consistently applied rules.
If Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton are considered equal, they must receive the same opportunities and carry the same responsibilities. Different standards cannot be applied depending on circumstances or the level of media pressure surrounding a particular incident.
Ferrari must clearly establish what is permitted on track, where the limits lie in battles between teammates, how strategic decisions are handled and, above all, which behaviours are unacceptable. Simply telling both drivers that they are free to race is not enough. They must also understand where individual freedom ends and the interests of the team begin.
Otherwise, the risk is that each situation will effectively be managed by the drivers themselves, potentially affecting the internal balance of the organisation.
The season-long competitive relationship between the two can also be examined through the Charles Leclerc versus Lewis Hamilton head-to-head statistics, although their respective performances are only one element of the wider management challenge.
When Ferrari’s pit wall avoids making a decision, it has already made one
During the programme, we referred to a principle from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War: when troops become disorganised, the problem may lie with the authority of their commander.
The comparison with Formula 1 is naturally metaphorical, but the underlying principle remains relevant to the management of a racing team. An organisation needs a recognisable direction. Drivers must know who makes the decisions, what the priorities are and which standards of behaviour are expected of them.
When a team fails to clarify its position, it inevitably leaves room for different interpretations. In Formula 1, those differences can quickly develop into controversies, disagreements over team radio or problems that continue across several Grands Prix.
The objective should not be to prevent drivers from expressing disagreement or defending their own interests. It is entirely normal for two professionals competing for the best possible result to have individual ambitions. The responsibility of leadership is precisely to manage those competing interests without allowing them to take precedence over the common objective.
Choosing not to make a decision does not necessarily mean remaining neutral. It can mean allowing others to make that decision instead.
Lewis Hamilton’s public comments raise another question about Ferrari leadership
Another issue raised during the discussion concerned Lewis Hamilton’s public statements and the influence they can have on the team.
The British driver possesses enormous experience and considerable media influence. When Lewis Hamilton expresses an opinion to journalists, his words inevitably attract significant attention, particularly when they concern Ferrari’s internal operations.
That is not necessarily a negative development. A driver with such extensive experience may have valuable observations to share and may also want to encourage organisational change.
However, this is precisely where effective leadership becomes essential. A strong team must be capable of listening to its drivers, assessing their observations and translating them into operational decisions. What it should avoid is allowing every difference of opinion to develop into a public dispute.
The same principle applies to Charles Leclerc. Neither driver should be able to turn an internal disagreement into a question of personal authority or influence within the organisation. The problem is not that the two drivers have different personalities or occasionally disagree. It arises when responsibility for managing those disagreements is insufficiently clear.
The psychological and competitive aspects of the partnership have also attracted attention, including James Hinchcliffe’s assessment of Lewis Hamilton’s experience in his Ferrari rivalry with Charles Leclerc.
What Ferrari can learn from McLaren and Mercedes driver management
Looking at Ferrari’s rivals reveals different approaches to managing competitive teammates, each with its own challenges.
McLaren has experienced an internal rivalry between Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri that demonstrated how complicated it can be to manage two drivers competing at a high level. Decisions concerning track position and race strategy have frequently required precise communication and intervention from the team.
Mercedes, meanwhile, has given opportunities and responsibilities to a young driver such as Kimi Antonelli within an established structure that must also manage the competitive relationship with the more experienced George Russell.
No management model is perfect, and every Formula 1 team must find an approach suited to its own circumstances. One principle, however, remains clear: driver management cannot be left to chance.
Ferrari must decide which model it intends to follow. If the team wants two drivers who are completely free to compete, it must establish clear limits and consequences. If it prefers a defined hierarchy, that decision must be communicated and applied consistently.
Alternatively, Ferrari could choose to build its project around Charles Leclerc while making full use of Lewis Hamilton’s experience. That would also be a legitimate approach, provided the responsibilities were clearly established.
What cannot work effectively is a situation in which the rules appear to change depending on the circumstances.
Brazilian Grand Prix brought a truce, but did Ferrari resolve its internal tensions?
During the 2026 Brazilian Grand Prix, Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton had few significant opportunities to come into conflict during the race. Their different strategies and the way events unfolded helped prevent further moments of tension.
However, the absence of another confrontation does not necessarily mean that the underlying problems have been resolved.
A team cannot judge the effectiveness of its organisation solely by what happens when everything proceeds without incident. The true quality of leadership emerges during difficult moments, when drivers must make decisions within seconds while defending their individual interests. Ferrari must establish whether a genuinely shared understanding now exists between its drivers and management, or whether the tensions have simply remained temporarily beneath the surface.
Following the Brazilian Grand Prix weekend, Fred Vasseur addressed how Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc had settled their differences. Nevertheless, the wider question of how Ferrari should manage its two drivers remains important beyond any individual disagreement.
When two drivers compete without a sufficiently clear framework of rules, every new incident risks becoming another internal controversy.
Ferrari needs strong, recognisable leadership beyond the Hamilton-Leclerc rivalry
Ferrari’s difficulties cannot simply be reduced to the rivalry between Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton. Placing all responsibility on the drivers would be an oversimplification.
A leading Formula 1 team must possess an organisational structure capable of managing strong personalities, established champions and competing individual interests. The team principal and senior management must establish a clear direction, accept responsibility for their decisions and ensure that everyone works towards the same objective.
It is not essential to impose a designated number one driver at all costs. What matters is that both drivers understand the rules and that the pit wall possesses the authority to enforce them. Ferrari needs leadership capable not only of responding to emergencies, but also of anticipating and preventing them.
There is a fundamental difference between having two champions who both want to win and having a team that cannot establish how those champions should work together.
Leave a Reply