Juan Pablo Montoya believes Fred Vasseur faces a fundamental obstacle in managing Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc that Toto Wolff did not encounter in the same way at Mercedes. Following Ferrari’s controversial 2026 Mexico City Grand Prix, the former Formula 1 driver suggested that the French team principal does not possess the same level of independent decision-making authority as his Mercedes counterpart, with the ultimate power at Maranello extending beyond the racing team.
The assessment comes after another costly disagreement between Ferrari’s drivers, which contributed to the team missing an opportunity to secure a one-two finish in Mexico. Although Vasseur has faced criticism for allowing Hamilton and Leclerc to fight without stricter instructions, Montoya argues that outsiders cannot fairly judge his management without understanding how decisions are made behind closed doors. In his view, the difference between Ferrari’s leadership structure and Wolff’s position at Mercedes is central to the debate.
Juan Pablo Montoya explains why Fred Vasseur lacks Toto Wolff’s authority
Speaking to Spanish publication AS, Juan Pablo Montoya questioned whether Fred Vasseur has the freedom to make major decisions without first securing approval from senior Ferrari executives.
The former Formula 1 driver acknowledged that, from the outside, it might appear necessary for Vasseur to adopt a tougher approach towards Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc. However, he argued that such criticism would be unfair because the public has no direct knowledge of what happens during Ferrari’s internal meetings.
Montoya explained that observers cannot know whether Vasseur personally handles every important discussion or whether certain matters are addressed by individuals higher within the organisation. He stressed that Ferrari’s management hierarchy extends beyond its Formula 1 team principal.
To illustrate the difference, the Colombian compared Vasseur’s position with that of Bradley Lord at Mercedes, rather than placing him on the same level as Toto Wolff.
In Montoya’s assessment, Vasseur resembles a deputy team principal when it comes to the authority he can exercise independently. He suggested that a particularly significant decision at Ferrari might require the Frenchman to consult senior executives, whereas Wolff would not face the same requirement at Mercedes.
The comparison reflects the contrasting leadership structures of the two organisations. Wolff combines his responsibilities as Mercedes team principal with his position as chief executive, giving him extensive authority over the Formula 1 operation.
Vasseur, meanwhile, operates within Ferrari’s broader corporate structure and reports to chairman John Elkann and chief executive Benedetto Vigna, who occupy the highest positions in the company’s leadership hierarchy.
For Montoya, that distinction helps explain why the French manager cannot necessarily exercise the same degree of control over Hamilton and Leclerc that Wolff previously enjoyed when managing internal rivalries at Mercedes.
Ferrari’s Mexico GP controversy intensifies pressure on Fred Vasseur
The debate surrounding Ferrari’s management intensified after the 2026 Mexico City Grand Prix, where an early confrontation between Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc damaged the team’s prospects of converting a promising starting position into victory.
Hamilton had secured his first pole position for Ferrari at the Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez, while Leclerc had moved into second place by the opening corner. With both drivers at the front, the Scuderia appeared to have an opportunity to achieve a one-two finish.
However, their battle changed the course of the race. Leclerc took the lead after leaving the circuit at Turn 4, with Hamilton unhappy that his team-mate had gained the position by cutting across the grass rather than remaining within the track limits.
The Monegasque subsequently chose to retain the lead instead of immediately handing the position back, accepting the consequences of the five-second penalty imposed by the stewards. Hamilton also ran slightly deep during the opening exchanges, allowing Max Verstappen to move between the Ferrari drivers.
Leclerc’s decision nearly proved successful, as he came close to establishing a sufficient advantage to offset his penalty. However, a slow pit stop allowed the Red Bull driver to take the lead, and Verstappen ultimately won the race.
The final classification left Hamilton second and Leclerc fourth, meaning Ferrari missed an opportunity to capitalise fully on its strong pace. The result also extended the team’s run without a victory to 11 rounds.
The incident prompted renewed scrutiny of Ferrari’s handling of the relationship between Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc, particularly because the Mexican confrontation was not the first time their on-track rivalry had created difficulties for the team.
Lewis Hamilton’s Mexico recovery could not erase Ferrari’s missed opportunity
Despite the problems created by the opening-lap battle, Lewis Hamilton managed to recover to second place during an eventful race.
A crucial moment arrived after Valtteri Bottas crashed his Cadillac, triggering a red flag. When the race resumed on lap 47 of 71, Hamilton made an effective getaway and was able to secure second position.
Charles Leclerc experienced a more difficult restart, locking his front-left tyre into Turn 1 before being forced to defend against McLaren driver Lando Norris. Without the interruption, Hamilton had been facing the possibility of finishing behind his team-mate, who had refused to surrender the lead gained during the opening-lap incident.
Although the eventual result provided Hamilton with a podium finish, it did not remove the underlying disagreement about how Ferrari should manage situations in which both cars are fighting for the same position.
The controversy also revived the questions raised by Lewis Hamilton’s criticism of his team-mate’s approach to racing, adding another chapter to an increasingly complicated internal battle.
Fred Vasseur’s talks with Lewis Hamilton leave Ferrari racing rules unresolved
Following the Mexican Grand Prix, Fred Vasseur held discussions with Lewis Hamilton in an attempt to address the situation. However, those conversations did not produce a concrete plan for changing Ferrari’s approach to internal racing.
Speaking ahead of the São Paulo Grand Prix, Hamilton explained that circumstances had prevented the team from holding more comprehensive discussions. Fed Vasseur had briefly returned to Italy, while Charles Leclerc had travelled home following the birth of his first child. As a result, the three had not been able to meet together and examine the Mexico City incident in sufficient detail.
Hamilton acknowledged that there was still no established plan for addressing the disagreements, indicating that further communication would be necessary before Ferrari could determine how to proceed.
The Briton’s position was consistent with his earlier insistence that he would continue to express his views and accept responsibility for his own decisions. His determination to address Ferrari’s internal tensions underlined the importance he placed on establishing a clearer working relationship with the team.
The absence of an immediate solution has also kept attention on Vasseur, whose preference for allowing both drivers to race freely has repeatedly been questioned during the 2026 campaign.
New Ferrari rules reportedly under consideration after repeated driver clashes
The confrontation in Mexico has reportedly prompted Fred Vasseur to consider whether Ferrari needs a more clearly defined framework governing battles between its two drivers.
According to reports, the team principal has been evaluating the possibility of introducing new internal racing rules following the Mexico City Grand Prix, although no definitive changes had been announced at the time.
The potential shift follows several other occasions during the 2026 season when Hamilton and Leclerc’s competition created problems for the Scuderia. Their encounters in China, Barcelona and, most notably, at the Italian Grand Prix had already raised questions about whether Ferrari’s reluctance to intervene was preventing the team from maximising its results.
Those repeated flashpoints have made the issue increasingly difficult to dismiss as an isolated disagreement between two competitive drivers. While Ferrari has continued to allow Hamilton and Leclerc considerable freedom on track, the consequences of their battles have placed the team’s wider interests under greater scrutiny.
The season-long comparison between the drivers can also be explored through the Charles Leclerc versus Lewis Hamilton Formula 1 head-to-head statistics, which provide context for their performances across the championship.
Why Toto Wolff could manage Lewis Hamilton differently at Mercedes
Montoya’s broader argument centres on the contrast between the authority enjoyed by Toto Wolff and the responsibilities assigned to Fred Vasseur.
During Lewis Hamilton’s years at Mercedes, Wolff oversaw several significant internal driver relationships, including the Briton’s championship rivalry with Nico Rosberg and his subsequent partnerships with Valtteri Bottas and George Russell.
As Mercedes team principal and chief executive, Wolff had considerable control over how those relationships were managed, including the ability to intervene when the team’s interests required it. Montoya believes Vasseur operates under different conditions at Ferrari, where major decisions may involve John Elkann and Benedetto Vigna rather than resting exclusively with the Formula 1 team principal.
That does not necessarily mean the French manager lacks influence over the drivers or their racing instructions. Rather, Montoya’s interpretation is that his position within the wider Ferrari organisation may limit the independence with which he can make particularly consequential decisions.
The distinction is important when assessing whether Vasseur should be held solely responsible for the absence of stricter instructions between Hamilton and Leclerc.
For the former F1 driver, criticism of Ferrari’s team principal must take account of the possibility that important decisions are influenced by the company’s senior leadership.
The Mexico City controversy therefore raised a question extending beyond the relationship between the two drivers: whether Ferrari’s management structure allows its team principal to exercise the authority necessary to resolve internal disputes as decisively as Toto Wolff did at Mercedes.
With the Scuderia evaluating its approach after another missed opportunity, Montoya’s comments placed the focus not only on Fred Vasseur’s management decisions but also on the level of control he can realistically exercise within Ferrari.
Leave a Reply