
© Daimler AG
Italian media claims Mercedes’ senior management in Stuttgart was opposed to a longer contract for Lewis Hamilton because they were fearing “he might decide to stop suddenly” like Nico Rosberg.
The news of Lewis Hamilton’s sudden move from Mercedes to Ferrari in 2025 has left the Formula 1 world in shock.
A few months ago Mercedes announced they have signed Lewis to a two-year contract, but it has now been revealed it was a one year deal with an option for an additional year.
Lewis obviously decided not to go through with the second year, opting to move to Ferrari instead. Discussions over reasons that led to Lewis making, what was reported as a ‘last minute’ decision, are going all over the place.
Now, Italian Motorsport writes that Mercedes team boss Toto Wolff would have “reserved a two-year renewal for the seven-time champion, but it seems that the constraints for a shorter duration have come from [Mercedes’ parent company in] Stuttgart”.
According to the report, Mercedes’ senior management was fearing that Lewis could suddenly decide to retire, like Nico Rosberg did back in 2016, leaving the team in a bad spot.
If you like SilverArrows.Net, consider supporting us by buying us a coffee!
“The German parent company itself would have wanted to be cautious about Lewis’ future: the doubts were not so much that he would be enchanted by the Ferrari sirens, but rather that he might decide to stop suddenly, as Nico Rosberg had done after having won the 2016 World Championship,” the report read.
According to the report, Mercedes higher-ups were hoping Lewis would give them an answer on his plans post 2024 after testing the 2024 car.
“The idea, therefore, was to have a response from Hamilton by the end of February, before the 2024 season got underway and it was clear what the level of competitiveness of the W15 was, which Lewis only got to find out on the simulator,” the report continued.
So, according to Italian Motorsport’s report, Lewis’ decision to join Ferrari instead was a surprise to the company.
Keep in mind that this report is completely unsubstantiated and therefore it cannot be taken as fact.