OPINION: The chosen one: How McLaren is building Oscar Piastri’s kingdom

Oscar Piastri, Zak Brown and Lando Norris | Credit: McLaren on X

From backup plan to crown prince

Oscar Piastri enjoyed one of the most sensational entries into the world of Formula One - he sure knew how to make an entrance. His arrival followed a high-profile and contentious contract dispute with Alpine. As he was part of the Alpine Academy program, the team had heavily invested in Piastri’s junior career. However, after the Federation Internationale de l’Automobile’s Contract Recognition Board passed a ruling that favoured McLaren, therefore confirming that the Australian driver had no valid contract with Alpine, he suddenly became their desired driver.

This dramatic acquisition of a highly rated junior racer put McLaren in a position of having “won” the race to sign Piastri, which only set the precedent for his elevated status. This initial success in securing a highly coveted talent laid the groundwork for a narrative of significant investment and expectations from the driver. This subsequently influenced how the team might view and promote him. 

Oscar Piastri and Lando Norris celebrate following the Australian’s first win in Hungary | Credit: f1.com

Piastri’s raw talent and rapid adaptation to Formula One are undeniable with his multiple wins and podiums. This created the perception that McLaren is cultivating a “future of the sport” narrative around the driver. 

This analysis focuses on the perceived favouritism that is shaping the team’s internal dynamics and public image at the expense of their established cornerstone, Lando Norris. The observation of this favouritism appears to resonate more loudly than objective performance metrics, with media narrative and team messaging playing a significant role in shaping the public opinion and influencing the team culture, irrespective of the internal intentions.

From outsider to insider overnight

Oscar Piastri on the podium after winning at Jeddah in F2 | Credit: f1.com

Piastri’s controversial transition from a reserve driver at Alpine to a full-time Formula One race seat at McLaren was swift and highly publicised. His immediate leap into a coveted position, bypassing a more traditional gradual progression for a rookie, made him appear uniquely talented.

McLaren’s marketing efforts seemed to quickly embrace the Australian driver. This is especially visible in 2025. The official McLaren store offers dedicated teamwear and fanwear for both drivers. However, the promotion surrounding Piastri’s victories seems particularly amplified. For instance, the team had winner merchandise ready for Piastri’s victory in Miami. The merchandise was released on their official store mere minutes after the win. It begs the question: where were the marketing efforts for Norris’ Monaco win, the crown jewel of F1 and a more prestigious venue than the American circuit?

The prevailing sentiment suggests that Piastri’s achievements are consistently presented as part of a grander, more deliberate team narrative.

The perceived favouritism does not necessarily manifest itself in a lack of support or coverage for Norris but rather in the enthusiastic degree of promotion seen for Piastri.

The swift establishment of Piastri as a prominent figure, even before the demonstration of his impressive on-track results, seems to be a strategic public relations move from McLaren to capitalise on his high profile acquisition and perceived potential. The proactive narrative building around the driver can influence the perceptions of internal team dynamics, despite both drivers officially being treated equally.

The team that never made him prove it

Piastri celebrates after winning the 2025 Chinese Grand Prix | Credit: McLaren

The developmental trajectory of McLaren’s 2025 car, the MCL39, has aligned to be more favourable to Piastri’s driving style. This implication is supported by the observation that the team specifically addressed the Australian driver’s biggest weakness, tyre degradation, in the design of the car. This is an area where Norris has a distinct advantage over his teammate. The alignment also suggests that Piastri has not had to fundamentally alter his technique to “fight” the car’s inherent characteristics to the same extent as Norris has.

Conversely, the British McLaren driver has openly discussed his struggles with the handling of the MCL39, especially in qualifying, stating that the car “doesn’t suit at all my driving style”. He acknowledged the necessity to “adapt to whatever car they get given” and expressed a willingness to “stop maybe asking so much for what I want and [be] more just willing to do whatever makes the car quicker.”

Team principal Andrea Stella also conceded that in making the car faster, it “took something away from Lando in terms of predictability” at the limit, which indicates a fundamental shift in the car’s behaviour that disproportionately affected Norris and prevents him from pushing to extract those vital tenths. The car development made the vehicle faster overall but also introduced characteristics that make it “difficult to drive” and “unpredictable” at the limit.

This directly explains Norris’ struggles, especially in qualifying. Piastri’s success could be partly attributed to his “natural adaptation”, or to the car suiting his driving style more. Regardless, the outcome benefits one driver more, even if it was not a result of intentional bias in design.

McLaren’s lead operational strategist, Oli Cartlidge | Credit: Oli Cartlidge Linkedin

An important thing to note is that McLaren’s lead operational strategist, Oli Cartlidge, is also the leading race execution strategist for Piastri, which is a potential conflict of interest. The team officially maintains that both drivers are on “equal footing in terms of strategy and componentry” and that team orders “have rarely played a part”. McLaren CEO Zak Brown has also publicly stated that the drivers are “free to race [each other]”.

Red Bull Racing’s CEO and team principal Christian Horner has highlighted that an inherent “conflict” within McLaren’s “two number one drivers” stance will arise, especially because “self-interest will always outweigh team interest” in a championship battle.

The implication is that “equal footing” in a competitive environment with two strong drivers can paradoxically create perceived strategic conflicts where the optimal outcome for the time might not align with an individual driver’s immediate race position or championship aspirations.

The team seems to have the Constructors’ Championship as their only goal for the year, and do not prefer which driver wins as long as they score important points for the Constructors’.

Andrea Stella: The architect of bias

McLaren Team Principal Andrea Stella | Credit: f1.com

Stella’s public commentary has consistently lauded Piastri’s rapid improvement, stating that the driver “has become a faster driver” and possesses the speed and bandwidth to process things necessary to contend for the title. The team principal has also noted that the Australian driver “delivers when he has to, makes hardly any mistakes – and that’s what you need when you want to fight for the title.”

In contrast, Stella has acknowledged Norris’ struggles with the MCL39, attributing them to the car’s unpredictability at the limit and stating that it is the team’s utmost “responsibility… to improve the car”. He also placed an emphasis on the British driver needing to “maintain an availability to adapt”. Stella praised Norris’ self-critical approach, observing that he “tends to absorb and point the blame on himself”, a trait that he viewed as beneficial for a team principal since it saved him from taking accountability for the team’s mistakes and letting his driver take the heat of the media.

The framing, while seemingly balanced, subtly places the burden of adaptation and performance issues more heavily on Norris. Concurrently, Stella praises Piastri’s innate speed and consistency when there has been less need for adjustment on his part.

Oscar Piastri, Andrea Stella and Lando Norris on the podium of the Bahrain Grand Prix 2025 | Credit: Lando Norris on Instagram

This creates a narrative where Norris’ struggles are framed as a personal adaptation challenge, whilst Piastri’s success is attributed to inherent speed and flawless execution, which reinforces the “chosen one” perception. The team principal’s public statements are critical in shaping these narratives and influencing both internal team morale and external perception. One driver’s challenges are consistently framed as personal failings, while the other’s success is presented as innate skill, leading to a perception of unequal support or validation, regardless of the objective truth.

Regarding Norris’ starts, the fans labelled him as a “bottler” after he lost the lead on the first lap on several occasions throughout the 2024 season. Stella clarified months after the initial incident in an interview that this issue was due to a technical problem with the car’s slow reaction times and not necessarily the driver’s skill. The issue was subsequently fixed, leading to improved starts, yet the label prevails.

There is a stark contrast in the way Stella speaks of the two drivers. He has implicitly highlighted Piastri’s “mental strength” through comments like “delivers when he has to, makes hardly any mistakes” and lauding his overall consistency. For instance, the deciding race of the 2024 Constructors' Championship in Abu Dhabi brought a heap of pressure. After a collision on the first lap, Piastri was visibly flustered, making contact with Franco Colapinto and expressing frustration when stuck behind midfield cars. The Australian driver’s race engineer, Tom Stallard, had to tell him to calm down through the radio to avoid compromising the race for his teammate and potentially losing the World Constructors’ Championship.

In comparison, his teammate kept his cool and maintained the lead into the race and made no mistakes since the risk of either Ferrari drivers’ overtaking him at any given point would mean losing the Constructors’ Championship.

This highlights a perceived contrast in how Stella publicly addresses each driver’s challenges and strengths, contributing to the narrative of preferential treatment.

The silence in strategy

The team’s official policy, as mentioned before, is to allow both drivers to race freely without imposing a rigid hierarchy or making frequent use of team orders. However, specific instances raise questions about the consistent application of this policy.

Lando Norris, Max Verstappen and Oscar Piastri on the podium following the 2025 Emilia-Romagna Grand Prix | Credit: F1 on Instagram

For instance, during the 2025 Emilia-Romagna Grand Prix, Norris was on fresher tyres and positioned in P3 behind Piastri in P2. He could have had the chance to pursue Max Verstappen to fight for the win. However, there were no team orders issued for Piastri to yield the position. Instead, Norris told the team “I see Oscar’s tyres are pretty dead. If we want any chance of going for the lead, we know what to do. I’m not asking for him to let me by. I’m just saying let’s not make it too hard for one another. If we fight, we will go backwards.” 

Whether the lack of team orders cost Norris valuable time in his pursuit of Verstappen and a possible win is an ongoing debate amongst McLaren fans. When questioned on his thoughts on the strategy used, Piastri stated that he “wasn’t gonna give up without a fight.” 

In the 2025 Australian Grand Prix, Piastri was instructed to not attempt to overtake Norris while clearing lapped backmarkers. In response, the driver stated that he was faster. This caused a fan uproar, as they believed that the strategy favoured Norris and did not let the home hero battle for a win. The broadcast delayed the radio messages showing that the order had been lifted and the cars were unlapped so that no collision was caused due to a battle between the front two drivers, causing them to lose out on important points and positions.

Lando Norris ahead of the Chinese Grand Prix 2025 | Credit: f1.com

In the 2025 Chinese Grand Prix, Norris was told to prioritise creating a gap between George Russell behind him in third position to secure a McLaren 1-2 finish. He was later told that he could fight for a win if he had sufficient fuel remaining towards the end of the race.

There have been many mechanical issues impacting Norris’ race performance. During the Chinese Grand Prix, the driver managed a critical brake issue towards the end of the race, which compromised his ability to chase Piastri. Brown commented on Norris’ brake issues, stating, “I said to Andrea it’s not the worst thing in the world as long as he comes home in second.” This general dismissiveness towards external concerns in a potentially dangerous situation contributes to the perception that issues affecting Norris are not taken with utmost seriousness.

Another example is the 2025 Miami Grand Prix. During the first free practice session of the race weekend, there had been tools left in the cockpit of Norris’s car (specifically, a torch and a wrench) which the driver noticed when on track. The FIA issued an investigation and let the team off with a warning for releasing the car in an “unsafe condition”. The British driver’s “quick reaction” in securing the tools was cited by the stewards as a reason for only a warning, highlighting the driver’s professionalism in preventing a worse outcome.

McLaren CEO Zak Brown and Lando Norris | Credit: f1.com

These perceived patterns of mechanical issues for Norris only, alongside Brown’s general dismissiveness towards these issues feed a narrative of bias. The absence of explicit team orders to benefit Norris, even when strategically advantageous, can be interpreted as a de facto strategic bias, especially when contrasted with past instances where Norris was expected to hold position.

The accumulation of these incidents of perceived strategic inaction and mechanical issues seems to only be affecting one driver more often at critical junctures than the other driver. This contributes to the narrative of a systematic disadvantage for Norris. 

While these individual incidents might be coincidental, their consistent occurrence within the context of a tight intra-team championship fuels speculation about underlying bias. These inconsistencies and misfortunes underline a powerful narrative of unfairness which can impact upon fan loyalty to the team.

Oscar’s mentality: The gift to McLaren

Piastri’s public statements are often confident and assertive, adding to his media persona of “ice man”. His proclamation of “we want the best person to win every weekend, and at the moment, that’s what’s happening” can be interpreted as a self-assured declaration and on the cusp of arrogance that fans seem to enjoy.

McLaren’s drivers celebrate a 1-2 at the 2024 Hungarian Grand Prix | Credit: McLaren on X

Norris, in contrast, is perceived as more self-critical and humble. When discussing the Hungarian Grand Prix in season seven of Netflix’s Drive to Survive, the British driver’s mindset was shown by a statement he made: “at the end of the day, I’m hired by McLaren” which highlights his team-player mentality. His consistent self-critique and willingness to adapt to the car rather than demanding it suits his driving style shows how focused he is on his own job and emphasises a more “team oriented” humility.

Stella has noted that Norris “tends to absorb and point the blame on himself” which is a trait that he views positively as a team principal. However, it creates a public image contrast where Piastri projects confidence and Norris’ introspection and accountability is misconstructed as a lack of mental fortitude.

Oscar Piastri and Mark Webber | Credit: f1.com

Piastri’s manager Mark Webber plays a pivotal role in this dynamic. Due to his own history with Red Bull Racing and having been relegated to a “number two driver” role behind his teammate, Sebastian Vettel, it is widely speculated that Webber has added a clause in his prodigy’s contract to prevent him from playing that number two role.

Nico Rosberg, one-time Formula One World Champion, has also explicitly speculated that Piastri’s contract “may contain specific clauses that prevent McLaren from favouring Lando Norris outright”. This strategic foresight from Webber in order to protect Piastri’s interests and ensure equal opportunity creates a perception that Piastri may be positioned to be the team’s primary focus.

This contractual protection elevates Piastri’s standing within the team from day one. It adds to his “chosen one” narrative, as it prevents the team from prioritising Norris, even if it was strategically beneficial for the team’s overall constructors’ championship aspirations.

What this means for the team’s future

Lando Norris ahead of the 2019 Australian Grand Prix | Credit: Lando Norris on X

Norris is a long-standing and loyal fixture at McLaren. He joined in 2019 and stuck with the team throughout their rebuilding years. He has consistently outperformed his teammates over his career, with a 39-15 qualifying head to head record against Piastri from 2023 to 2025 and a dominant 35-9 head to head record against Daniel Ricciardo. This establishes him as a proven high-performance asset and the cornerstone of the team’s recent resurgence.

However, the current season’s narrative has switched with Piastri winning five races in contrast to Norris’ two. The British driver’s public struggles adapting to the MCL39 and perceived strategic leanings towards Piastri could risk alienating a driver who has shown immense loyalty and talent over the years. 

This perceived favouritism towards Piastri and Norris’ struggles with the car could depress the British driver’s morale and compel him to seek opportunities elsewhere. If Norris does look to leave the team that he has been a part of for the past eight years, it could represent a significant loss for McLaren.

It is important to examine Norris’ historical performance. While Piastri is currently leading the Drivers’ Championship and has more wins this season, focusing on these results overlooks Norris’ consistent track record. Norris achieved a runner-up finish in the 2024 Drivers’ Championship and has consistently delivered strong results, even in prior years when the car was less competitive. His ability to haul difficult cars to fantastic results emphasises his strong work ethic and adaptability. His dedication to improvement is evident in his statements about working “behind the scenes” and accepting the car as is, instead of demanding it to be changed.

Piastri’s short team success should not overshadow another driver’s long-term value and contribution, especially when it is amplified by a narrative of “new talent” versus an “established driver” struggling. This highlights the superficiality and recency bias of some Formula One media narratives.

Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri ahead of the 2023 Australian Grand Prix | Credit: McLaren

If Norris consistently feels disadvantaged by the strategies or the car’s characteristics, and his struggles are framed as personal adaptation issues instead of a collective team issue, whilst Piastri’s success is considered natural and having been a “long time coming”, then it may erode trust and harmony within the team, even if not overtly. The lack of public acknowledgement of a systemic issue that is affecting the British driver and goes beyond the general statements about the car development.

A legacy built on perceived bias can risk tarnishing McLaren’s reputation for fairness and can impact future driver recruitment. A driver like Norris, who has committed to the team through thick and thin, feels undervalued. This portrays a negative image to other aspiring talents. It could make younger drivers think twice before signing with a team that does not value loyalty.

True championship success and a lasting legacy requires genuine equality and transparent support for both drivers. A sentiment that seems to be missing from McLaren’s moral compass.

The papaya illusion

Despite McLaren’s consistent public assertions of their drivers being on an “equal footing”, this analysis reveals a pattern of subtle, yet impactful, disparities. It includes the car’s characteristics seemingly suiting Piastri more, Norris’ documented struggles to adapt, perceived strategic inaction that disadvantages the British driver and the influential contractual protections secured by Webber for Piastri. These elements collectively create an “illusion” of equality that is not fully supported by the observed dynamics.

Should Piastri clinch the championship, his undeniable talent will be celebrated. The narrative surrounding the team’s perceived favouritism, the car’s characteristics and challenges faced by Norris will inevitably become part of that historical record. If Piastri’s victory is overshadowed by perceived favouritism, it will create a hollow win in the eyes of some, potentially leading to Norris, a driver with a strong historical record and deep loyalty, feeling compelled to seek opportunities elsewhere, undermining the team’s long-term stability. 

The question will linger: was it a purely meritocratic victory, or was it a kingdom built stepping on the back of he who laid the bricks? A victory poisoned by a subtle, yet pervasive bias that inadvertently sidelined the driver who had carried the team’s hopes?