The murky world of driver contracts and sponsorship
Discussion
Although it primarily involves McLaren Indy and Alex Palou, there is overlap with McLaren's F1 operations, the judgment in the High Court case between is worth a read for those who like the backroom shenanigans of the "high-stakes commercial world of elite motorsport".
The history of when each contract was signed is eye opening. Probably the way it always was (certainly in terms of teams' behaviour).
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/0...
A mixed bag for McLaren Indy LLC and McLaren Racing Ltd in terms of the outcome:
(1) The driver salary claim succeeds in the sum of US$1,312,500.
(2) The NTT base fee claim succeeds in the following amounts: 2024-2026: US$5,382,344; and 2027: US$950,000.
(3) The GM uplift loss succeeds in the sum claimed: US$500,000.
(4) The F1 loss claim fails.
(5) The other sponsorship losses claim succeeds in that the methodology used by Mr Harris is appropriate, except in respect of step 3 and his reliance upon the Palou 2024 Rate Card. Mr Harris will need to carry out the exercise which he explained he had not yet done but which he thought would likely result in a loss of between US$2 million to US$2.5 million. Mr Steadman and the Defendants will obviously need to say whether they agree with whatever figure is arrived at by Mr Harris.
(6) The loss of performance-based revenue claim succeeds in the amount of US$2.05 million.
(7) The wasted expenditure claim fails.
(8) The restitutionary claim fails.
The history of when each contract was signed is eye opening. Probably the way it always was (certainly in terms of teams' behaviour).
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/0...
A mixed bag for McLaren Indy LLC and McLaren Racing Ltd in terms of the outcome:
(1) The driver salary claim succeeds in the sum of US$1,312,500.
(2) The NTT base fee claim succeeds in the following amounts: 2024-2026: US$5,382,344; and 2027: US$950,000.
(3) The GM uplift loss succeeds in the sum claimed: US$500,000.
(4) The F1 loss claim fails.
(5) The other sponsorship losses claim succeeds in that the methodology used by Mr Harris is appropriate, except in respect of step 3 and his reliance upon the Palou 2024 Rate Card. Mr Harris will need to carry out the exercise which he explained he had not yet done but which he thought would likely result in a loss of between US$2 million to US$2.5 million. Mr Steadman and the Defendants will obviously need to say whether they agree with whatever figure is arrived at by Mr Harris.
(6) The loss of performance-based revenue claim succeeds in the amount of US$2.05 million.
(7) The wasted expenditure claim fails.
(8) The restitutionary claim fails.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff