The Silent Betrayal: Why Guenther Steiner Called McLaren ‘Wankers’ and What It Means for Oscar Piastri’s Future

In the high-stakes world of Formula 1, the competition doesn’t end when the checkered flag drops. The real war—the war of institutional pressure, political narrative, and psychological gamesmanship—often begins in the briefing room. And after the dust settled at the 2025 Brazilian Grand Prix, a profound silence from one of the sport’s most storied teams has sparked a public execution by one of the paddock’s most unfiltered voices.

Guenther Steiner, the former Haas Team Principal known globally for his fiery passion and absolute refusal to mince words, did not hold back. Appearing on the Red Flags podcast, Steiner unleashed a volley of criticism aimed squarely at the McLaren F1 team, declaring them his “wanker of the weekend.” Yet, the core of his fury was not the controversial penalty handed to young McLaren star Oscar Piastri; it was the team’s shocking, tactical failure to defend their driver at all costs. McLaren’s silence, Steiner argues, was not an isolated omission, but an act of corporate and political surrender that poses a structural threat to their aspirations.

The Interlagos Ignition: A Controversy Forged in Chaos

The controversy that ignited this firestorm unfolded on lap six of the 2025 Brazilian Grand Prix at Interlagos. Following a safety car period, the pack was grouped tightly for a restart that promised, and delivered, chaos. Oscar Piastri, demonstrating the aggressive instinct of a rising star, spotted a gap on the inside of Turn 1 and launched an ambitious move.

His target was Kimi Antonelli. The manoeuvre was tight, resulting in contact that sent Antonelli veering wide and into the path of Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc. The Monégasque driver suffered a broken suspension and was forced into immediate retirement. The consequences were instantaneous: the FIA stewards deemed Piastri fully responsible, hitting him with a harsh 10-second penalty and, critically, assigning two points to his Super License.

The FIA’s technical rationale hinged on the updated 2025 regulations for inside passing: Piastri’s front axle, they determined, was not level with Antonelli’s mirror at the corner’s apex, thus denying him the right to space. This technicality, however, masked a deeper racing issue, and for a team fighting for position in a close championship, it should have been the starting gun for a robust defence.

Silence: McLaren’s Unacceptable Response

For Steiner, the lack of appeal or even a public protest from the Woking outfit was utterly indefensible. In his view, a Formula 1 team has a solemn duty to protect its drivers at all costs. The political dynamic of modern F1 demands that teams “constantly pressure stewards,” utilizing every tool available to reverse unfavorable rulings. McLaren’s reaction, or rather the lack thereof, was “absolute silence.”

For someone like Steiner, who became famous precisely for his outbursts and for fighting every point until the end with a modest team like Haas, this passive attitude was an act of betrayal of the sport’s own competitive spirit. McLaren’s decision to remain passive was a profound institutional choice, one that signals a preference for perceived diplomacy over necessary conflict.

The Gold That Went Unmined: Leclerc’s Testimony

What makes McLaren’s silence so strategically baffling is the fact that they possessed a piece of evidence that could have been “gold” in their defence: the statement of the direct victim of the crash, Charles Leclerc.

Leclerc, the driver whose race was immediately ended by the incident, offered a moderate and objective analysis. He stated that he did not view Piastri as solely responsible, assessing the incident as a “50/50” racing move between the Australian’s optimism and the aggressive line taken by Antonelli.

This statement was an immediate counter-narrative to the FIA’s harsh verdict. The victim himself refused to assign full blame, yet McLaren made no effort to leverage it—not for an appeal, nor to build a public argument to shape the narrative. The message was brutal: if the most affected person doesn’t entirely blame Piastri, why does his own team tacitly do so by standing idly by?

McLaren’s failure to use Leclerc’s testimony was a political blunder that confirmed Steiner’s accusation of weakness. In F1, you are not just competing on the track; you are waging a constant war of “politics, psychology, and institutional pressure.” By choosing not to show up for this battle, McLaren allowed a negative narrative—one of driver culpability and team compliance—to solidify unchallenged.

The Political Dimension: Fragility vs. Ferocity

Steiner’s critique, therefore, evolves beyond a single racing incident; it becomes a warning about the team’s very identity. McLaren, under the leadership of Andrea Stella, has successfully cultivated an image of engineering efficiency and calm serenity. This approach has yielded significant sporting results, marking a resurgence for the once-beleaguered team. However, this technical focus may be distancing them from the crucial political dimension of the championship.

In contrast, teams like Red Bull and Ferrari understand that the fight extends to the briefing rooms and post-race statements. Red Bull’s Christian Horner, for example, has constructed a public identity where any penalty is immediately contested—not always to win the appeal, but to establish a reputation. This approach ensures that the commissioners know they cannot apply judgment without fear of resistance. Every time a team accepts a sanction without discussion, it gives up symbolic ground.

For McLaren, this silence is interpreted as vulnerability. If you never question, if you never demand, the system tends to assume it can act without fear of retaliation. Steiner argues that this strategy of “diplomacy over conflict” is interpreted as weakness in an environment as aggressive as Formula 1. What is at stake is not just a sanction, but the team’s respect, internal confidence, and the identity of a team that aspires to return to the pinnacle of the sport.

The Real Price: Piastri’s Super License Threat

The structural damage to McLaren is compounded by the very real and immediate threat to Oscar Piastri’s career. The two points received in Brazil increased his Super License total to six points. With twelve points triggering an automatic one-race suspension, Piastri is now alarmingly halfway to being sidelined for an entire Grand Prix weekend.

This is a dangerous signal, especially as it was a punishment that his own team made no effort to mitigate or dispute. No matter how talented a driver is—and Piastri has proven his speed and talent—they cannot fully develop if they feel their team offers no support in critical moments. The lack of defence in Interlagos undermines the pilot’s confidence and can destabilize collective morale, leading to a long-term erosion of the psychological contract between team and driver.

In essence, McLaren has built a winning car and revitalized its brand image, but when the “scales of sporting justice tilted against it,” it chose silence. That silence can cost them far more than they imagine, transforming a single race penalty into a structural and strategic problem. The narrative forming around McLaren is that of a team brilliant in engineering, but utterly vulnerable on the political, psychological, and emotional management levels. In a competition measured in milliseconds and political influence, not fighting every decision can ultimately make the difference between a championship won and one tragically lost.