The growing tensions between Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc at Ferrari have raised a question that goes beyond the personalities and ambitions of the two Formula 1 drivers. Following the events of the 2026 Mexican Grand Prix, attention is increasingly turning towards team principal Fred Vasseur and the Ferrari leadership. Is the real problem the rivalry between the drivers, or the absence of clear authority capable of managing it?
In ancient Greece, there was a figure known as the kybernetes: the helmsman. He was responsible for steering a ship, choosing its course and guiding it through calm waters and, more importantly, through storms. The role demanded competence, authority and the willingness to take responsibility for decisions. Plato later transferred this image from navigation to politics, using it to describe the art of governing. From this comes the concept of kubernao: to govern, hold the helm and guide a collective organisation towards its destination.
It is a metaphor particularly suited to Ferrari’s current situation. What happened at the Mexican Grand Prix, together with several earlier episodes, suggests that managing the relationship between Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton requires more than simply keeping two team-mates on good terms. The tensions, misunderstandings and internal dynamics raise a fundamental question: are the drivers themselves the problem, or those responsible for managing them?
The debate has brought renewed relevance to comments from former Ferrari team principal Maurizio Arrivabene, who knows the challenges of managing major Formula 1 personalities. During his time at Maranello, he was responsible for overseeing two world champions, Sebastian Vettel and Kimi Räikkönen. His experience offers a perspective on an environment where exceptional driving talent must operate within a clearly defined hierarchy.
Maurizio Arrivabene’s warning about Ferrari leadership
The principle expressed by Maurizio Arrivabene is relatively straightforward, but its implications are significant. A manager must behave like a manager, the person in charge must exercise the authority that comes with the position, and a driver, however extraordinary, must understand their role within the organisation.
According to the former Ferrari team principal, drivers sometimes make statements or behave in ways that may appear harmless but can conceal attempts to gain greater influence within the team. This is not simply a technical or sporting matter. It concerns control over organisational dynamics, the ability to influence decisions and the opportunity to shape the team’s short-, medium- and long-term direction.
That is precisely when the team principal must intervene. Not to intensify disagreements or necessarily determine who is right in a particular incident, but to remind everyone that the team is an organisation in which no individual can place themselves above the collective project.
Maurizio Arrivabene used a particularly forceful expression to describe the intervention required: “Listen, guys, if something like this happens again, there will be hell to pay.”
The message leaves little room for interpretation. A strong manager must possess the authority to establish rules, enforce them and prevent the personal ambitions of drivers from influencing the entire organisation. Every component, from the most important to the least visible, belongs to a much larger mechanism. And that mechanism is Ferrari.
Could Ferrari’s real problem be on the pit wall rather than in the cockpit?
Maurizio Arrivabene’s argument inevitably shifts attention away from the drivers themselves. Are Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton genuinely the central problem at Ferrari? Or should greater scrutiny fall on the leadership responsible for managing their relationship?
Charles Leclerc was already established at Maranello before Fred Vasseur arrived, while the French team principal personally supported the recruitment of Lewis Hamilton alongside Ferrari’s senior management, led by John Elkann and Benedetto Vigna, who strongly backed the move to bring the seven-time world champion to Italy.
It was a decision of enormous sporting, commercial and media significance, one that inevitably required an organisational structure capable of accommodating the ambitions and personalities involved.
Bringing together two drivers of this calibre means more than providing them with competitive cars and declaring that both have equal opportunities to succeed. It requires a clear system of rules, properly defined responsibilities, established procedures and, above all, an authority recognised by both drivers. In moments of heightened tension, that authority must serve as a reliable point of reference.
This is where one of Ferrari’s apparent weaknesses becomes evident. The team’s rules of engagement do not seem to have been defined with sufficient clarity or, at the very least, do not appear to be enforced with the necessary firmness.
The subject of possible changes to Ferrari’s racing rules following the Mexican Grand Prix controversy has already attracted attention. However, the fundamental question concerns whether the existing framework provides sufficient authority and clarity when disagreements arise.
There has also been discussion of alleged fairness clauses in Charles Leclerc’s contract. Similar arrangements could conceivably exist in Lewis Hamilton’s agreement, although there is no verified contractual information establishing this. It would therefore be inappropriate to treat such possibilities as definitive explanations for the current tensions.
The central issue lies elsewhere. Any individual agreement must fit within the wider collective project, and ensuring that this happens is ultimately the responsibility of Ferrari’s management.
Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc cannot become competing centres of power
Ferrari has two exceptional drivers with different characteristics, experiences and ambitions. Charles Leclerc represents both the team’s sporting present and its future, while Lewis Hamilton brings an extraordinary wealth of experience and a racing career that few drivers can match.
Both have legitimate ambitions, and neither can reasonably be regarded as a supporting driver. Yet that is precisely why their relationship requires strong leadership. Not necessarily an authoritarian approach, but one based on genuine authority: leadership capable of listening, mediating when appropriate and intervening decisively when necessary.
Allowing two champions to continually assert their respective positions without an identifiable direction risks exposing Ferrari to an ongoing internal conflict.
The danger is that the team becomes a battleground between two competing centres of power rather than remaining an organisation in which both drivers work towards a common objective. If that happens, the consequences extend beyond post-race comments or tense radio exchanges.
They can affect strategy, resource allocation, technical development and, most importantly, results.
The tensions surrounding the two Ferrari drivers have already generated considerable discussion, including Lewis Hamilton’s position amid the growing disagreements with Charles Leclerc and the questions raised about how the team handles their rivalry.
A Formula 1 team can develop competitive cars, commit enormous financial resources and establish ambitious technical programmes. But if a significant proportion of its energy is consumed by internal disputes, the effectiveness of even the strongest project can be undermined.
If drivers begin taking points and opportunities away from one another without a clear framework to manage those situations, the consequences can eventually outweigh the benefits of having two outstanding talents.
Fred Vasseur and John Elkann face the ultimate Ferrari management test
Ferrari does not need a referee who intervenes only after a conflict has already erupted. It needs a helmsman capable of anticipating difficulties, establishing a clear course and reminding everyone who holds responsibility for steering the organisation.
Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton may legitimately compete for the position of leading driver. They may have different perspectives and every right to defend their sporting interests. What they cannot be allowed to determine for themselves, however, is the balance of power within Ferrari.
That responsibility belongs to the people who selected them, employ them and lead the team. It belongs to Fred Vasseur, but also to the senior management structure, including John Elkann.
The issue is therefore not simply whether one driver should receive preferential treatment over the other. It is whether Ferrari can establish a system of authority that both drivers recognise, even when their personal objectives come into conflict.
That is why the questions facing Fred Vasseur and John Elkann over Ferrari’s driver management reach well beyond any single Grand Prix or controversial incident.
The team must ensure that the sporting ambitions of its two drivers remain compatible with its wider objectives. Otherwise, internal disagreements risk influencing decisions that should ultimately serve Ferrari as a whole.
The challenge is not to eliminate the competitive instincts of Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton, but to provide a structure in which those instincts strengthen rather than weaken the Scuderia.
And if the helm at Maranello continues to be left without a firm hand, perhaps the real problem is not with those sailing the ship, but with those responsible for setting its course.
Leave a Reply