Lewis Hamilton arrived at Ferrari as a seven-time world champion, one of the most successful drivers in Formula 1 history and arguably the biggest signing the Italian team has made in decades. But none of those achievements should automatically entitle him to number-one status at Maranello. In fact, building Ferrari’s future around Hamilton at the expense of Charles Leclerc would be one of the least logical decisions the Scuderia could make.
There is an important distinction between signing a driver of Hamilton’s calibre and making him the centre of an entire sporting project. The former was an understandable gamble. The latter would risk sacrificing Ferrari’s long-term future for a short-term opportunity that becomes less convincing with every passing season.
Advertisement
Hamilton will turn 42 in January. Leclerc is 29. That 13-year difference is not merely a statistic, nor is it an argument that age alone determines performance. Fernando Alonso has repeatedly demonstrated that elite drivers can remain competitive well into their forties. But Formula 1 teams cannot make strategic decisions based on exceptional cases, particularly when they already have a driver entering what should be the strongest years of his career.
Ferrari must ask itself a straightforward question: who is more likely to lead the team through its next sustained period of championship contention? The answer should be Leclerc.
Photo: Race Pictures
Photo: Race Pictures
Advertisement
Why are so many former F1 figures backing Hamilton?
The debate has intensified following the tensions between Hamilton and Leclerc at the Mexico City Grand Prix, with several prominent Formula 1 figures arguing that Ferrari should establish a clear hierarchy. Among them is 1996 world champion Damon Hill, who recently urged Ferrari to make Hamilton its number-one driver for 2027.
Speaking on Sky Sports’ The F1 Show, Hill argued that Ferrari’s considerable investment in Hamilton should influence its decision, suggesting the team could fight for both championships if it committed fully to the seven-time world champion.
“I think it makes sense to me to put all your eggs behind Lewis,” Hill explained, pointing to the prospect of Hamilton securing an eighth world championship.
Advertisement
Hill is not alone. Jacques Villeneuve previously argued that Ferrari should prioritise Hamilton during the 2026 championship battle, particularly when the Briton held a substantial points advantage over Leclerc.
Former Haas team principal Guenther Steiner also called for Ferrari to establish clearer priorities after the Dutch Grand Prix, arguing that Hamilton’s stronger championship position justified giving him preferential treatment. Riccardo Patrese similarly criticised Ferrari’s handling of team orders at Zandvoort, suggesting Hamilton deserved number-one status.
These arguments are understandable when viewed through the narrow perspective of an individual championship campaign. If one driver has a realistic chance of winning the title and the other does not, prioritising the stronger contender can be perfectly reasonable.
But there is an enormous difference between introducing team orders to maximise an immediate championship opportunity and deciding that Hamilton should become Ferrari’s undisputed leader. The former is a sporting decision. The latter could fundamentally reshape the team’s future.
Advertisement
And the suggestion that Ferrari should make such a commitment simply because Hamilton is a seven-time champion, or because it has already invested heavily in him, overlooks the most important question of all: what happens after Hamilton leaves?
Ferrari cannot afford to confuse reputation with performance
Hamilton’s extraordinary career deserves respect, but respect and preferential treatment are two entirely different things. Seven world championships, 105 Grand Prix victories and more than a decade at the highest level establish Hamilton’s place in Formula 1 history. They do not establish that he should automatically receive priority over Leclerc today.
Ferrari would be making a fundamental mistake by allowing achievements accumulated largely at Mercedes to dictate its internal hierarchy. The team needs to evaluate the drivers it currently has, not the versions of those drivers who existed five or ten years ago.
Advertisement
Hamilton’s experience undoubtedly remains valuable. His understanding of championship battles, technical development and the demands of competing at the front can benefit Ferrari enormously. But experience should be an asset within the team, not a justification for placing one driver above another regardless of their respective performances.
There is also a danger in assuming that Hamilton’s historical success makes him the safer championship option. Formula 1 does not reward reputations. It rewards drivers capable of extracting the maximum from the machinery available to them, consistently and under pressure.
If Hamilton demonstrates that he is Ferrari’s strongest driver, he should receive the support that his performances justify. Exactly the same principle must apply to Leclerc. Anything else would mean Ferrari is choosing its hierarchy before allowing the circuit to establish one.
Leclerc represents something Ferrari cannot simply replace
Perhaps the strongest argument against prioritising Hamilton is not Hamilton himself. It is what Ferrari would risk losing by marginalising Leclerc.
Advertisement
The Monegasque has invested a substantial part of his career in Ferrari, remaining committed through seasons of disappointing machinery, strategic mistakes and missed opportunities. He has developed within the organisation, understands its particular pressures and has repeatedly demonstrated the speed required to compete against the best drivers on the grid.
That loyalty should not guarantee Leclerc preferential treatment either. But it makes the idea of reducing him to a supporting role particularly difficult to justify.
Ferrari already possesses a driver who combines experience within the team, exceptional qualifying ability and several potentially productive seasons ahead of him. Finding another driver with that combination would be neither straightforward nor inexpensive. And what message would Ferrari send by making Hamilton its undisputed leader?
Hamilton will be looking to re-establish his dominance (Photo: Race Pictures)
Hamilton will be looking to re-establish his dominance (Photo: Race Pictures)
Advertisement
That a driver can spend years committing himself to the team’s ambitions, only to discover that an established superstar arriving towards the end of his career automatically takes precedence.
For Leclerc, the implications would extend beyond individual races. A clear number-two position could influence strategic calls, development priorities and ultimately his confidence in Ferrari’s commitment to his own championship ambitions.
The greatest danger would not necessarily be an immediate departure. It would be gradually convincing Leclerc that his best opportunity to become world champion lies elsewhere. Ferrari would then risk losing the driver around whom it could build its next decade in order to prioritise one whose remaining Formula 1 career is inevitably much shorter.
The Hamilton gamble has an expiration date
There is another uncomfortable reality Ferrari cannot ignore: even if Hamilton returns to his very best, the team has a limited window in which to capitalise.
Advertisement
Suppose Ferrari commits its resources and sporting priorities to Hamilton over the next two seasons. Even in an optimistic scenario, the team would eventually need to prepare for his departure and establish a new leader. That transition would bring Ferrari back to the very question it can answer today. Why postpone building around Leclerc when the driver is already there?
The argument becomes even weaker if prioritising Hamilton damages the relationship with the Monegasque. Ferrari could find itself forced to replace one driver approaching retirement while simultaneously trying to retain another who has spent years being denied equal opportunities.
This would be poor succession planning for any sporting organisation. For a Formula 1 team attempting to establish long-term stability, it would be particularly damaging. Nor can Ferrari assume that Hamilton’s commercial appeal makes such a decision worthwhile. His arrival generated enormous global attention, strengthened the team’s visibility and created one of the most compelling stories in modern Formula 1.
But Ferrari is not lacking international recognition. It is arguably the most recognisable brand in motorsport. What it needs is not another marketing triumph. It needs a sustained period of competitive success. And while Hamilton’s commercial value is undeniable, allowing that consideration to influence the sporting hierarchy would represent a dangerous confusion of priorities.
Advertisement
Ferrari should have learned from its own history
Ferrari has experienced the consequences of difficult driver hierarchies before. Its successful eras were not built simply by assembling famous names, but by creating an environment in which sporting leadership, technical direction and competitive objectives were aligned.
Michael Schumacher became the focal point of Ferrari’s project because the team built a coherent structure around him and his performances justified that commitment.
Hamilton’s arrival does not automatically recreate those circumstances. More importantly, the Schumacher comparison overlooks a crucial difference. Ferrari recruited Schumacher at 27, with much of his career still ahead of him. Hamilton joined Ferrari at 40, already possessing virtually every major individual achievement the sport has to offer.
Advertisement
The distinction matters because a team’s sporting strategy must account for what a driver can deliver in the future, rather than simply celebrating what he achieved in the past. Ferrari cannot build a new dynasty by attempting to recreate an old one. And it certainly cannot afford to treat Leclerc as an expendable component of a project designed around Hamilton’s final opportunity to win another championship.
Ferrari must choose its future, not its past
None of this means Hamilton should be relegated to a supporting role. Making Leclerc the automatic number one regardless of performance would be equally difficult to defend.
Ferrari should begin with two drivers competing on equal terms, with sporting priorities determined by results and championship circumstances. If one establishes a clear advantage, the team should respond accordingly.
Advertisement
But there is a significant difference between giving Hamilton the opportunity to earn leadership and handing it to him because of his name. The first approach is competitive. The second is sentimental.
Ferrari’s responsibility is not to provide Hamilton with the perfect conclusion to an extraordinary career. It is to maximise its chances of winning world championships, both now and in the years ahead. Hamilton may still have the ability to deliver one. Leclerc has the potential to compete for several.
That does not guarantee the Monegasque will become world champion, nor does it diminish Hamilton’s achievements. It simply reflects the different stages of their careers and the consequences of committing a team’s future to either driver.
Making Hamilton number one would not necessarily be a mistake because he is incapable of winning. It would be a mistake because Ferrari would be prioritising the final chapter of one driver’s career over the prime years of another. For a team that has spent so long trying to return to the top, that would be an extraordinary gamble to make.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: Sports.yahoo.com
