After yet another storm at Ferrari, president John Elkann points the finger and points to Hamilton and Leclerc as the problem. But the numbers (and recent history) of the team say otherwise.

“They need to concentrate on driving and talk less.” In one fell swoop, John Elkann transformed a sporting disaster like the weekend in Sãn Paulo into a public trial for his drivers, Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc. One strongly desired, perhaps for marketing and sales reasons of the customer product judging by the terrible chemistry between the phenomenal English driver and the Red, the other defended and reconfirmed with enthusiasm.

On the other hand, the president praised the engineers and mechanics, underlining that the car has improved, only to then add that “everything else is not up to par” and that the drivers must put the team before themselves. So they are also self-centered talkers.

The sentence immediately hit the international media. Sky Sport spoke of comments that have “sparked the debate” around the most observed team in the world championship, recalling how Elkann explicitly asked Hamilton and Leclerc to “focus on driving and talk less”, after the double Brazilian disaster.

Yet, if there is a figure who today has very little credibility to criticize pilots, it is precisely that of John Elkann.

Seven years of power, zero titles

Since Elkann has formally been at the helm of Ferrari, the Maranello board tells a simple story: no world title, mixed results, continuous changes in technical and managerial direction. The picture of the Elkann era is merciless and frustrating. An inconsistent, often uncertain team, launched by sensational media campaigns in January and dramatically grappling with a seizure announced since April. All this despite the sacrifice of top men, replaced with solutions that are never completely convincing but always careful to support the boss’s thoughts with declarations that raise doubts about their intellectual honesty rather than their managerial ability.

In this context, pointing the finger at the pilots sounds more like an exercise in self-absolution than a call for leadership. Also because the Interlagos crisis is not the whim of two overpaid stars: it is yet another episode of a season in which Ferrari alternates acute isolated moments with nightmarish Sundays, in a level of technical and strategic fragility that no press release can hide.

It is no coincidence that several international observers have read Elkann’s words as the start of an internal war. So let’s talk about it. Let’s talk about industrial policy. A president who on one hand exalts the structure while delegitimizing another to target the riders is not an encouraging sign for the stability of the team. On some forums, which are actually very credible and authoritative, we read of an internal message board in which, anonymously, someone harshly contested Elkann’s exit, speaking of a “dazed and confused environment without clear leadership or honest and self-critical thinking”. Boom.

“Talk less”: the wrong message at the wrong time

On the merits, the most disputed passage of Elkann’s message is the only clear thing that the boss says. Highly contested, but clear: “We need drivers who think more about Ferrari and less about themselves, who talk less and concentrate on driving.” And it is a phrase that, in the reading of many, has a precise target: Charles Leclerc, guilty of having expressed frustration several times over team errors and wasted opportunities. Just as Elkann would not have liked the image of a frustrated and darkened Hamilton after the latest failures, in a mindset very far from that disruptive and successful protagonist not only in competitive terms but also in communication. Elkann seems to ask the drivers what he himself is unable to guarantee to Ferrari: coherence, continuity, and above all credibility.

It is enough to go back into the history of Ferrari to remember how messages of this kind are almost always the prelude to a season of internal poison and revenge. If those who criticize “disturb the operator”, the management remains silent and remains in the background, protected by the aura of the brand. But Ferrari doesn’t need silence and yesmen: it needs direction.

Does it have anything to do with money?

In reality, the numbers also say that Hamilton and Leclerc’s salary is the highest in the paddock, and that this is probably their fault. The money that Ferrari itself promised and guaranteed him. As if giving them an adequate vehicle isn’t an equally significant responsibility because after all they earn a lot, and they should win.

Ferrari is today the team that spends the most on salaries for the driver pair (around 70 million euros): and therefore more than Red Bull and McLaren, much more than Mercedes (which replaced Hamilton with the very young Antonelli) with results that are there for all to see.

Expecting two champions of that level to cash in in silence is, as well as unrealistic, profoundly short-sighted. In modern Formula 1, drivers are not executors: they are the last link in a technical chain, through which they guarantee feedback, direct development and represent the team externally. Telling them to “speak less” means, in fact, telling the world “we don’t like criticism”.

The credibility paradox

The central point therefore remains political: perhaps even cultural. In America John Elkann was summed up with a merciless photographic phrase: a silver-spoon executive out of depth. A rich manager born with a silver spoon in his mouth but without any quality is a little less figurative and perhaps watered down. Re-Booom.

So, is Elkann really the right person to give sports culture lessons? Was it really useful to shift the focus from the team performance from the track to the theater of responsibilities and blame?

At the same time, the discontent among the fans is palpable. On social media and in international forums Elkann is described as a president distant from the track, symbol of a dynasty that first abandoned a monetized industrial hub for our country to enjoy his money among the palm trees of California, the skyscrapers of New York and the tracks of St. Moritz.

We close with a point that is dear to the writer. In F1 the credibility of the speaker is part of the substance. When Toto Wolff or Christian Horner point the finger, they bring with them a palmares built over years of victories and continuity. Elkann, on the contrary, speaks after a long cycle without titles, with a Ferrari that has changed its skin several times without ever really finding its identity. This is why his exit sounds out of tune, useless, an end in itself, not very credible, completely inadequate. Other? Yes hypocritical.

And it’s not just a question of tones – questionable in any case – but of perspectives: shifting attention to the drivers at a time when the car, the wall and the organization show obvious cracks and structural and leadership limitations means missing the target. Look at the finger and not at the moon. And fuel the feeling that in Maranello, once again, they are looking for a scapegoat to put in front of the car.

A choice that risks weakening Ferrari, not strengthening it

There is one last element, perhaps the most worrying of all. A few hours after Elkann’s exit, Leclerc and Hamilton were forced to take to social media to reiterate their loyalty to the Ferrari project and their common desire to react as a team. The management shoots, the drivers show their face, the fans are divided, the opponents are grateful.

If Elkann really wants a more united, competitive and less talkative Ferrari, the first step should be simple: start with himself. Be seen more, talk less (possibly never): or start by explaining certain industrial choices that dramatically seem like the original sin that led Ferrari to be an extraordinary marketing value but with increasingly less convincing content.