Is this how you win a championship? McLaren and their internal battle

It is human nature to want control. In life, in sport, and especially in Formula 1. But racing has a cruel way of reminding everyone that control is an illusion. Engines blow, pit stops falter, tyres degrade faster than predicted. Fate intervenes. And sometimes, fate doesn’t care how carefully you planned your race.

Fate decided at Monza that Oscar Piastri, not Lando Norris, should finish second. Norris had been in front all afternoon, until a sluggish pit stop dropped him behind his team-mate. Had they driven for different teams, that would have been that: Piastri second, Norris third, and the Australian extending his title lead. But they don’t. They drive for McLaren, a team determined to bend fate to its will and micromanage this world championship to the tiniest detail.

So, when Norris slipped behind, McLaren told Piastri to hand the place back. Team principal Andrea Stella insisted it was “the fair thing to do,” invoking the team’s much-debated "Papaya Rules". The logic was clear: Norris did not deserve to suffer because of a botched stop. Just as in Hungary, when Piastri was told to return the lead after Norris had undercut him thanks to strategy, the team was keen to protect the spirit of equality.

But how fair is fairness when it always comes at the expense of one driver? At Budapest, Norris was asked to return the lead to Piastri after an undercut, even though strategy had put him ahead. At Monza, Piastri was told to move aside when a slow pit stop dropped Norris behind. In both cases, McLaren intervened to restore what they saw as balance - but in doing so, they rewrote the results that the racing itself had delivered.

To their credit, both drivers accepted the calls without complaint. Norris handed back the win in Hungary, Piastri gave up second at Monza, and neither chose to ignite a feud that could destabilise the team. That level of compliance is rare in Formula 1, where drivers don’t always follow team orders - regardless of which driver is being affected.

The bigger issue is what this all means for the title fight. Formula 1 history is full of legendary team-mate feuds: Senna and Prost, Hamilton and Rosberg, Vettel and Webber. But McLaren are trying to rewrite the script with compliance, harmony, and rules designed to keep the peace. They are on course to seal the constructors’ title, no one doubts that. Yet, curiously, when all that remains is the drivers’ crown, they seem more determined than ever to control it.

And that is where it becomes dangerous. If Norris wins this championship by fewer than six points, then Monza’s intervention may be remembered as the moment the balance tipped. A slow pit stop that should have cost him points will instead have been erased from history by team orders. If Hungary was the first warning, Monza confirmed the pattern: McLaren’s obsession with fairness risks becoming the very thing that makes the outcome unfair.

Where, then, is the line? Was it unfair when Norris lost 18 points to an engine failure in Zandvoort? If so, should McLaren sabotage Piastri’s power unit in Baku to even the score? Ridiculous, of course - as ridiculous as believing you can legislate fate out of Formula 1.

McLaren’s achievements this season are immense. They have built a car capable of challenging Red Bull, and they have two drivers performing at the very top level. They will win the constructors’ championship. That battle is already over. But if they want to win the drivers’ title without tarnishing it, they need to step back. Let the drivers race. Let them fight. Let fate play its part.