Fred Vasseur’s Maranello absence is not Ferrari’s real leadership problem

Ferrari team principal Frédéric Vasseur has come under growing scrutiny in recent days, with a series of reports focusing mainly on his leadership style and an alleged rise in dissatisfaction with the way he is running the team.

More specifically, one of the main criticisms directed at the French manager concerns how much time he spends away from Maranello. Some accounts have gone as far as portraying it as an “allergy” to Ferrari’s headquarters, supposedly leaving members of the team without sufficient guidance and support when important decisions have to be made. The debate has intensified amid wider questions about the presence of senior Ferrari figures at Maranello.

At the same time, Frédéric Vasseur has been accused of behaving like an absolute boss, with an abrasive or arrogant approach that has reportedly caused frustration among part of the team and contributed to an internal divide.

Is Frédéric Vasseur’s absence from Maranello really the problem?

Of all these claims, the criticism concerning Frédéric Vasseur’s absence from Maranello stands out because it evokes a picture not simply of physical distance, but almost of disinterest in what is happening inside Ferrari.

For that reason, it deserves closer consideration. That does not mean automatically defending Frédéric Vasseur, who certainly does not need anyone to act as his defence counsel.

The role of a Formula 1 team principal requires, among many other responsibilities, being close to the team at the circuit and acting as its leading representative in front of the media through both successful and difficult race weekends.

With a Formula 1 calendar that has expanded to 24 Grands Prix, running almost continuously from March until December across several continents, the idea that a team principal should constantly be physically present at the factory feels increasingly outdated.

The presence of the person ultimately responsible for a Formula 1 team can take many different forms. It depends on delegating responsibility to highly trusted and demonstrably capable people, organising departments effectively and creating a solid, well-oiled structure that does not depend on one individual being physically present at every moment. That wider organisational principle is also central to the argument that Ferrari needs a structure and vision that can outlast any individual team principal.

Frédéric Vasseur clearly still has several aspects of Ferrari’s reorganisation to address. If everything were already functioning as it should, Ferrari would be discussed as a winning team ready to fight for the Formula 1 title. That has not yet happened.

Toto Wolff provides an interesting comparison. The Mercedes team principal is normally present at every Grand Prix, to the point that his absences tend to attract attention, while Mercedes is unquestionably an organisation with a proven history of winning. But that alone does not establish that constant physical presence at a team’s headquarters is the decisive factor behind success.

Ferrari’s real leadership question is delegation, not attendance

If the criticism of Frédéric Vasseur’s absence from Maranello is actually intended to suggest something deeper — that he struggles to delegate authority and wants to make every important decision himself despite being unable to assess every situation physically and in detail — then the issue becomes far more serious. In that case, the criticism would be touching a genuine vulnerability in Ferrari’s management structure.

Decision-making and delegation matter considerably more than simply counting how many days a team principal spends inside the factory. Recent discussion surrounding Frédéric Vasseur and Ferrari’s trackside decision-making also illustrates why attention inevitably falls on how effectively the organisation reacts when difficult calls have to be made.

Simply emphasising Frédéric Vasseur’s absence from Maranello, portraying it as an aversion to Ferrari’s headquarters and presenting it as his principal failing, therefore risks becoming a rather lazy and superficial criticism. It does little to address the heart of the matter or identify what would actually have to change for Ferrari to move forward.