Ferrari’s controversial clash between Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc at the 2026 Mexico City Grand Prix has exposed what appears to be a much deeper problem within the Scuderia: a breakdown in driver management that raises serious questions about the leadership of Fred Vasseur, John Elkann and Benedetto Vigna. The issue is no longer simply which driver was responsible for the incident. It is whether Ferrari’s management structure is capable of enforcing its own decisions and preventing internal rivalries from compromising the team’s results.
Hours could be spent examining statements, telemetry, replays and every frame of what happened between Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc. It would be possible to analyse every manoeuvre, reconstruct their racing lines, measure the space available and determine who made the first mistake. Such an exercise might be fascinating for Formula 1 enthusiasts, but it would do little to address the fundamental problem Ferrari should be confronting.
This is not about defending Lewis Hamilton or taking Charles Leclerc’s side. Nor should it become another opportunity to fuel divisions between supporters of the two drivers. What happened during the opening stages of the Mexican Grand Prix was, above all, a reflection of a team that increasingly appears unable to control its internal dynamics.
The rivalry has reached boiling point, and the initial sparks threaten to become a much larger fire that nobody at Maranello seems capable of extinguishing.
The people responsible for preventing that outcome have names: Fred Vasseur, Benedetto Vigna and John Elkann. Because the problem extends beyond the two men driving Ferrari’s SF-26 cars. It concerns a management model that is beginning to show increasingly serious weaknesses.
Ferrari’s Hamilton-Leclerc clash exposes problems enforcing team orders
The incident in Mexico carries particular significance for one reason: the instructions established by Ferrari during its pre-race briefings were not respected.
The rules of engagement had already been defined, partly in response to tensions that had emerged earlier in the season. This was not the first occasion on which the rivalry between Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc threatened to become a sporting problem, potentially costing Ferrari valuable championship points.
Indeed, it was Lewis Hamilton himself who had called for greater clarity following the events at Monza. The need to establish firm boundaries, agree on shared standards of behaviour and develop a consistent approach to managing racing situations was therefore already evident.
Yet when the moment came to apply those instructions, the system failed.
Lewis Hamilton directed several critical remarks towards his team-mate, while Charles Leclerc attempted to frame the incident as a matter of shared responsibility, pointing out that both drivers had run wide. There is no need to determine which driver was right in order to recognise the underlying issue. The important point is that the drivers acted in ways that did not respect what had been agreed with the team.
And Ferrari, evidently, was unable to ensure that its own instructions were followed.
The result was disastrous. The Scuderia had a car with the potential to win, had demonstrated unusually convincing race pace and appeared to possess everything necessary to fight for victory at the Mexico City Grand Prix.
Instead, the Italian team made life unnecessarily difficult for itself, offering Max Verstappen another opportunity that the Dutchman seized without hesitation. The Red Bull driver secured his third victory of the season, adding another win to the team’s tally. The circumstances have intensified the debate surrounding Ferrari’s latest internal clash in Mexico and its potential consequences, particularly after the tensions that had already emerged at Monza.
What remains at Maranello is a familiar combination of recriminations, public statements and the need to repair the damage. But one question matters more than anything else: who is really in charge at Ferrari?
Fred Vasseur must take responsibility for Ferrari’s driver management
Fred Vasseur has spoken publicly in terms suggesting that the situation has moved beyond an acceptable level. The Ferrari team principal has effectively acknowledged that certain matters need to be resolved.
It is difficult to disagree. The problem is that the French manager is also one of the main figures responsible for finding those solutions.
For too long, the Ferrari boss has repeated the same messages: the importance of execution, the need to maximise the car’s potential, the obligation to avoid mistakes and the challenge of converting competitiveness into results.
These themes have become a recurring refrain ahead of almost every Grand Prix. Yet when Sunday arrives, events on the circuit seem to tell a different story with concerning regularity.
Identifying problems is not enough when the authority required to solve them is missing. Establishing rules achieves little if drivers are then allowed to disregard them. And declaring that certain behaviours will no longer be tolerated is meaningless if those declarations are not followed by consequences when the boundaries are crossed. This is where Fred Vasseur’s management capabilities come into question.
A Formula 1 team principal must know when to lead, when to mediate and when to impose authority. The drivers must understand that the team’s interests come before their individual ambitions. When that principle is ignored, the person responsible for the organisation must have the determination to intervene.
Fred Vasseur’s public response to the Mexico controversy has already placed his leadership under scrutiny, particularly after the Ferrari team principal demanded respect following the clash between Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc.
Perhaps it is also worth reconsidering how quickly the possibility of appointing Christian Horner was dismissed. The former Red Bull team principal built a long career around a highly centralised management model, often structured around a designated leading driver. That philosophy is open to criticism on several levels, but it also produced remarkable results.
This does not mean Christian Horner’s approach would necessarily be the correct solution for Ferrari. However, avoiding a serious discussion about authority, leadership and driver hierarchies would be a mistake.
Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc: Two champions do not automatically make a winning team
Fred Vasseur’s responsibilities, however, do not tell the entire story. It would be far too convenient to identify the team principal as the sole person at fault while absolving everyone else involved.
The decision to bring Lewis Hamilton to Ferrari was a strategic choice made by the company’s leadership and supported by John Elkann and Benedetto Vigna. It was a legitimate decision, and in many respects an extremely attractive one from both sporting and commercial perspectives. It should not now be retrospectively portrayed as an accusation against the British driver.
Bringing a seven-time Formula 1 world champion to Maranello had a clear rationale. But a move of that magnitude also required a careful assessment of the team’s internal balance.
Pairing Lewis Hamilton with a driver possessing the talent and character of Charles Leclerc inevitably involved an element of risk. Not because either driver was inherently incompatible with Ferrari, but because two such strong personalities, both driven by substantial and entirely legitimate ambitions, required a particularly robust management structure.
Perhaps the choice of team-mate should also have received even greater consideration before the decision was made.
That does not mean Charles Leclerc should have been sacrificed or removed from the team. Depriving Ferrari of a driver of his quality would have been absurd. However, when assembling a partnership of this calibre, management must recognise that combining two exceptional talents does not automatically produce a stronger overall result.
Formula 1 does not always follow simple arithmetic. Adding together the points Lewis Hamilton might be capable of scoring and those within Charles Leclerc’s reach does not magically guarantee a more successful Ferrari.
Sometimes the opposite can happen. Two elite drivers, both confident in their abilities and determined to pursue their ambitions, can end up taking valuable points away from each other. That is precisely what Ferrari must prevent. If the team cannot manage such a situation, it must seriously question whether its current organisational approach is sustainable.
The growing concerns surrounding the Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc rivalry and Ferrari’s need for change ahead of 2027 make that question particularly relevant.
The rules must be clear, and they must apply equally to everyone.
It should make no difference whether the driver involved is Lewis Hamilton or Charles Leclerc. Anyone who respects the team’s instructions contributes to the collective project. Anyone who disregards them risks damaging Ferrari and must accept the consequences.
There can be no preferential treatment, immunity or special protection based on individual reputation.
The competitive relationship between Ferrari’s two drivers can also be examined through the Charles Leclerc versus Lewis Hamilton F1 head-to-head statistics, which track their qualifying and race performances across the season.
John Elkann and Benedetto Vigna must explain Ferrari’s sporting vision
There is another level of responsibility that too often remains in the background: the company’s senior leadership and ownership.
John Elkann and Benedetto Vigna cannot simply approve major decisions, observe how events unfold and allow every subsequent problem to become the responsibility of Fred Vasseur or the drivers.
They supported the decision to recruit Lewis Hamilton. They occupy the highest positions within Ferrari’s organisational structure, and they must also answer for the company’s sporting and industrial strategies.
The fundamental question is straightforward: what exactly is Ferrari’s long-term project? Routine statements, familiar reassurances and official photographs are not enough. The Scuderia needs a recognisable vision, a clearly defined chain of command and a sporting strategy that does not change direction every time the latest race produces a disappointing result.
It would be desirable for Ferrari’s ownership to take a more visible role in explaining the direction of the organisation and the objectives it intends to pursue. Because Ferrari cannot continue operating through reactions alone. Every new crisis cannot be treated as an isolated emergency without addressing the structural causes that repeatedly create similar problems.
At the same time, it would be equally wrong to underestimate the progress Ferrari has achieved on the circuit during 2026. The SF-26 has shown gradual improvement throughout the season. The upgrades have provided encouraging signs, while the latest development package appears to have elevated the car to a particularly interesting level of competitiveness.
The power unit continues to show a deficit compared with Ferrari’s leading rivals, but development work is ongoing and improvements have already been recorded.
These encouraging signs are also relevant to Ferrari’s technical development programme and its potential implications for the 2027 Formula 1 project.
Ferrari is therefore not a team without technical potential. Quite the opposite. It is precisely the competitiveness the Scuderia has achieved that makes the events in Mexico so difficult to accept.
Having a car capable of fighting for victory and then compromising the result through internal disagreements is a luxury no Formula 1 team can afford. That is especially true for Ferrari, which has spent years attempting to return to the top of the sport.
Nobody at Ferrari should be untouchable, including Fred Vasseur
Ferrari must decide what kind of team it wants to become and, more importantly, how it intends to achieve that objective.
It must establish its targets, define the rules, clarify the hierarchy and demand that those decisions are respected by everyone involved.
If a driver is unwilling to follow the team’s instructions, that driver must be held accountable. If the team principal cannot establish a consistent approach and ensure that it is respected, then the French manager must be the first to question his own position.
Nobody should be untouchable. There should be no unquestionable management philosophies, no protected figures among the drivers and no executives whose decisions are considered beyond criticism. Formula 1 is not a religion, and Ferrari cannot be managed through blind faith in any particular individual.
If the management model is not working, it must change. If the people responsible cannot guarantee that the organisation functions properly, alternatives must be considered.
And if internal disagreements are compromising results, Ferrari must have the courage to intervene, even when doing so requires reconsidering major decisions and investments already made. In Mexico, the Scuderia squandered a genuine opportunity. It was not the first time such an opportunity had been lost during the 2026 season, which is precisely why the episode can no longer be dismissed as another unfortunate Sunday.
The Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc confrontation is now only the most visible manifestation of a much broader problem.
Ferrari risks carrying the same leadership problems into 2027
The 2027 Formula 1 season is approaching, and Ferrari should already be asking itself what kind of organisation it intends to build for the future.
The technical progress achieved with the SF-26 is encouraging, but a competitive car is only one part of the equation. A successful team must also possess the organisational discipline required to transform performance into victories. Continuing along the present path risks leaving Ferrari in exactly the same situation within a few months: a car capable of competing at the front, two enormously talented drivers and a team unable to turn those advantages into winning results.
And if that happens, there will be little value in examining another set of telemetry traces or reviewing another controversial on-track incident.
There will simply be another lost season.
Leave a Reply