Ferrari’s disastrous Brazilian Grand Prix has reignited questions about the team’s leadership, with Ralf Schumacher questioning Lewis Hamilton’s standing within the Scuderia while two of Italy’s most respected Formula 1 journalists have delivered a damning assessment of Fred Vasseur’s management.
The criticism has come from several directions following a weekend in which Ferrari managed just eighth place for Charles Leclerc and ninth for Hamilton at Interlagos. With Mercedes, McLaren and Red Bull continuing to set the competitive standard, the latest disappointment has intensified scrutiny of a team that remains unable to translate its resources and reputation into a consistent championship challenge.
Hamilton, who described himself as “devastated” in an Instagram message following the Brazilian race, has become one of the main targets of the post-race debate. Former Formula 1 driver Ralf Schumacher believes the seven-time world champion is not delivering the performances necessary to justify his position within Ferrari, while Italian journalists Giorgio Terruzzi and Pino Allievi have turned their attention towards the man responsible for leading the team.
Their criticism raises a bigger question for Maranello: is Ferrari’s latest setback fundamentally a driver problem, or does responsibility ultimately rest with the management overseeing the entire operation?
Ralf Schumacher questions Hamilton’s position at Ferrari
Schumacher has been particularly critical of Hamilton, arguing that the British driver’s difficulties alongside Leclerc are creating unnecessary tension within the team.
Speaking to Sky Germany, the former Williams and Toyota driver questioned whether Hamilton’s status within Ferrari is justified by his performances.
“I think Lewis is occupying a position in the team that he doesn’t deserve. The problem is that he’s simply not fast enough compared to Charles Leclerc,” Schumacher said.
His argument centres on the increasingly difficult comparison between Ferrari’s two drivers. While Hamilton arrived at Maranello with an extraordinary reputation, seven world championships and the expectation that his experience could help return Ferrari to the front, Leclerc has continued to provide a formidable benchmark.
For Schumacher, the problem is not simply that Hamilton is struggling to match his team-mate. It is that the discussion surrounding his position within Ferrari has become an issue in itself.
He drew a comparison with his brother Michael Schumacher’s time at Ferrari, suggesting that the German’s superiority over his team-mates meant there was never any uncertainty about the team’s competitive hierarchy.
“If he had been clearly better than his teammate, as was the case with my brother at the time, this debate wouldn’t even have existed. He’s the one who started it.”
It is a particularly pointed comparison given Michael Schumacher’s history with Ferrari. His arrival helped transform the Scuderia into a dominant championship-winning operation, with the German becoming the central figure around whom the team was built.
However, Hamilton’s situation is considerably more complicated. His arrival was intended to represent the beginning of another ambitious Ferrari project, but the difficulties of adapting to a new environment and extracting performance from the machinery have created an increasingly uncomfortable narrative.
Hamilton’s description of himself as “devastated” after Brazil only added to the scrutiny, with Schumacher suggesting that public comments and expectations should be matched by performances on the circuit.
Terruzzi questions Vasseur’s silence as Ferrari lose direction
While Schumacher has focused on Hamilton, Italian journalists Giorgio Terruzzi and Pino Allievi believe the more significant questions concern Ferrari’s leadership.
Speaking during the Terruzzi Racconta podcast, Allievi questioned the difference between Fred Vasseur’s approach and that of Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff.
Allievi suggested that Wolff had demonstrated a greater understanding of the personnel available within Formula 1, pointing to his willingness to recruit experienced Italian technicians who had previously been associated with Ferrari.
“The difference with Wolff is that the latter gave a lot of Ferrari’s Italian technicians a rematch… He freed himself… well, he took Ferrari’s rejects and made them win!”
Allievi’s comments also highlighted the significance of Loïc Serra, who eventually joined Ferrari after working at Mercedes.
He continued:
“Ferrari had absolutely no idea who they had internally. In any case, Wolff let go of Loïc Serra, who is the best person to have arrived at Ferrari in recent years…”
His wider criticism was directed towards Vasseur’s apparent distance from the problems affecting the organisation.
“But damn, Vasseur… sorry, guys, but he seems to be there, even in the face of disputes, like us, as an outside observer…”
Terruzzi, who oversees the podcast, was equally unimpressed with the team principal’s public communication.
“Vasseur never expresses himself, there’s never a single pre-race or post-race statement worth mentioning.”
He also questioned the significance of Vasseur’s explanation following the Brazilian race.
“‘We were missing something,’ he said yesterday… These two (Leclerc and Hamilton, ed.) were out of the points for three-quarters of the race, they were completely lost. And then, this whole window thing…”
Terruzzi’s frustration reflects a broader concern about Ferrari’s inability to provide convincing explanations when its performances fall short.
For a team with Ferrari’s history and expectations, simply acknowledging that something was missing is unlikely to satisfy supporters who have watched the same competitive problems return repeatedly.
Pino Allievi demands Ferrari’s senior management intervene
Allievi’s criticism has extended beyond the podcast, with the veteran journalist delivering an even more direct assessment in a separate article for FormulaPassion.
Writing after the Brazilian Grand Prix, the long-standing Ferrari observer argued that the problems at Maranello now extend beyond the immediate responsibilities of the drivers and technical departments.
“It is now more than obvious that the problems lie further up.”
His concern is that Vasseur has enjoyed considerable freedom to manage the team, yet the wider organisation has not demonstrated the willingness to address the underlying problems.
Allievi wrote:
“Vasseur, who has enjoyed complete freedom of action from the company management so far, seems to be ignoring the higher-level responsibilities for this defeat, while his superiors remain silent.”
The criticism is significant because it shifts the focus towards Ferrari’s corporate leadership, including president John Elkann.
Allievi believes that allowing the situation to continue without meaningful intervention risks damaging more than the team’s immediate Formula 1 ambitions.
He added:
“Sooner or later a solution must be found. Because we are fed up with seeing Mercedes, McLaren and Red Bull win and pursue big goals, while Ferrari is stuck in a crisis that apparently nobody really wants to solve.”
His message to the people ultimately responsible for the Scuderia was particularly blunt:
“What are you waiting for to finally intervene?”
It is a serious challenge to Ferrari’s senior management, especially given the team’s continuing inability to compete consistently for the biggest prizes in Formula 1.
Ferrari has not won the Constructors’ Championship since 2008, and the repeated changes in personnel and leadership have yet to deliver the sustained recovery that supporters have been waiting for.
Toto Wolff provides the leadership comparison Ferrari cannot ignore
Perhaps the most uncomfortable aspect of Allievi’s assessment is his decision to use Wolff as the example of what Ferrari is missing.
Mercedes has undergone significant changes in recent years, including Hamilton’s departure after his long association with the team. Yet Wolff has continued to oversee a competitive operation while managing the transition towards a new generation of drivers.
The emergence of Kimi Antonelli has provided another illustration of that approach. The young Italian has been entrusted with a major responsibility at Mercedes, with the team continuing to build around its longer-term ambitions.
Allievi sees Wolff as a leader who understands the importance of identifying talent, making difficult personnel decisions and maintaining a clear direction.
“He is the true leader – a step above everyone else – who is missing in Maranello.”
The comparison is particularly uncomfortable because Ferrari has traditionally possessed enormous technical resources, a global following and the financial backing to compete at the highest level.
Yet those advantages have not translated into the organisational consistency required to sustain a championship challenge.
Vasseur’s supporters could reasonably argue that rebuilding Ferrari is not an overnight process and that technical improvements, personnel changes and long-term development programmes require patience.
However, patience becomes increasingly difficult to justify when the team continues to fall short of its own expectations and the explanations offered after disappointing weekends fail to convince.
Ferrari faces questions that extend beyond Hamilton and Leclerc
The Brazilian Grand Prix has therefore exposed two different but closely connected arguments about Ferrari’s current predicament.
Schumacher believes Hamilton must accept greater responsibility for his performances and recognise that his reputation alone cannot guarantee a position of influence within the team.
Terruzzi and Allievi, meanwhile, believe that concentrating on the drivers risks overlooking the bigger problem: the leadership structure responsible for ensuring Ferrari operates as a coherent championship-winning organisation.
There is an important distinction between the two positions. Hamilton and Leclerc can only work with the machinery and operational decisions provided to them, while Vasseur is ultimately responsible for overseeing the wider competitive project.
That does not remove the drivers from scrutiny, but it does raise questions about whether Ferrari’s difficulties can realistically be solved by focusing on individual performances.
The comparison with Mercedes is also difficult to ignore. Wolff has demonstrated that losing a superstar driver does not necessarily mean losing the team’s direction, provided the organisation has a clear succession plan and the right people in key positions.
Ferrari, by contrast, continues to find itself discussing the same fundamental questions: its technical direction, the effectiveness of its management and the ability of its leadership to deliver meaningful progress.
The latest criticism from Allievi is particularly noteworthy because it is no longer simply a demand for better results. It is a direct challenge to those above Vasseur to examine whether the current structure is capable of delivering the recovery Ferrari needs.
Hamilton may be under pressure to demonstrate that he can match Leclerc, and Vasseur may be under pressure to explain why Ferrari continues to struggle.
But if Allievi is correct, neither issue will be resolved until the people at the very top of Ferrari decide that the current situation can no longer continue.
For a team that has spent years promising a return to the summit of Formula 1, the question now being asked in Italy is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid: how much longer can Ferrari afford to wait?
Would you like to see more TJ13 Formula 1 coverage? Add us to your favourites list on Google to receive trusted F1 news.
Craig Alderson is Senior Editor at TJ13, where Craig oversees newsroom operations and coordinates editorial output across the site. With a background in online sports reporting and motorsport magazine editing, he plays a key role in maintaining consistency, speed, and accuracy in TJ13’s coverage.
During race weekends, Craig acts as desk lead, directing contributors, prioritising breaking stories, and ensuring timely publication across a fast-moving news cycle.
Craig’s work focuses heavily on real-time developments in the paddock, including team updates, regulatory decisions, and emerging controversies. This role requires a detailed understanding of Formula 1’s operational flow, from practice sessions through to race-day strategy and post-race fallout.
With experience managing editorial teams, Craig ensures that TJ13 delivers structured, reliable coverage while maintaining the site’s distinctive voice.
Craig has a particular interest in how information moves within the paddock environment, and how rapidly developing stories can be accurately translated into clear, accessible reporting for readers.
