Max Verstappen has once again become the central figure in Formula 1 drama, but this time not because of his performance. Instead, a bold statement from former F1 chief Bernie Ecclestone sent shockwaves through the paddock and ignited one of the biggest debates of the season regarding Red Bull’s driver strategy.

“Max Verstappen will dominate this year’s race,” Ecclestone declared with absolute certainty, before adding a controversial twist. “He lost the championship because of Checo Pérez. I’m very happy that Red Bull sacked him.” The comment stunned both fans and insiders who believed Red Bull made their decision purely for competitive reasons.

Ecclestone went further, stating that Checo Pérez was not worthy of being Verstappen’s teammate. According to him, Pérez lacked the agility and racecraft required to complement Verstappen’s aggressive style. He even claimed that rising talent Isack Hadjar demonstrated far greater reflexes and adaptability on track.

The remarks triggered an immediate reaction across the motorsport community. Some agreed that Pérez’s inconsistent qualifying pace and race weekends hurt Red Bull strategically, especially when Verstappen needed support during critical races. Others accused Ecclestone of being disrespectful to a driver who played a major role in the team’s championships.

Pérez fans defended him, reminding critics that his defensive masterclass in Abu Dhabi 2021 helped Verstappen secure his first world title. They argued that loyalty and teamwork were undervalued in Ecclestone’s harsh assessment, and that success in F1 was never about individual brilliance alone.

On the other side, supporters of Ecclestone’s viewpoint insisted that Formula 1 evolved rapidly. Young drivers like Hadjar, Bearman, and Pourchaire represented a new generation that combined fearlessness with advanced simulator training, making them more effective under pressure than Pérez.

Sources inside Red Bull reportedly insisted that the decision to release Pérez was part of a long-term strategy. Team principal Christian Horner emphasized that the sport was entering a new era where consistency and pace needed to align with Verstappen’s peak performance window. Rumors suggested that Red Bull believed they were leaving points on the table.

When asked whether Hadjar was truly ready to step up to a top team seat, Ecclestone doubled down. He said Hadjar’s karting foundation and natural aggression were traits Red Bull historically rewarded. He compared Hadjar’s instincts to early Verstappen, claiming such raw competitiveness could not be taught or manufactured.

Fans speculated whether such commentary could increase pressure on Verstappen. Many wondered if Verstappen preferred a compliant teammate or a challenger capable of pushing him to new limits. Ecclestone argued that champions thrive under stress and that Verstappen was mentally robust enough to handle a hungry teammate.

Meanwhile, Pérez maintained silence, choosing not to ignite a media war. Mexican media outlets called the criticism unfair, citing Pérez as one of the most successful Latin American drivers in modern F1. They also highlighted the commercial and cultural impact he brought to the sport and Red Bull’s brand.

However, some analysts acknowledged that performance gaps during qualifying were undeniable. A tenth or two per lap over an entire season created strategic disadvantages. Verstappen often found himself isolated at the front without a rear gunner to challenge rival undercuts or alternative strategies from Ferrari and Mercedes.

Ecclestone concluded by saying Red Bull must prepare for an aggressive championship battle this year. With Ferrari developing a competitive package and Mercedes rumored to unlock a new aerodynamic concept, no team could afford internal weaknesses. The margin between victory and defeat had shrunk dramatically.

Social media platforms exploded with debates. Verstappen supporters celebrated Ecclestone’s remarks, claiming the sport deserved transparency. Pérez supporters accused the comments of bias and sensationalism, arguing that performance should be measured by full-season statistics rather than selective criticism.

Sponsors and marketing analysts took a different angle, questioning whether Red Bull’s decision might have long-term consequences. Pérez brought enormous market value from Mexico and Latin America, regions with expanding motorsport demographics. Losing such influence could reshape Red Bull’s global fanbase distribution.

Meanwhile, insiders close to Hadjar claimed he remained focused and unbothered by the rumors. He reportedly trained intensively with Red Bull’s junior program, spending countless hours in simulators and analyzing data. Engineers praised his ability to translate telemetry into meaningful performance gains during testing.

Observers also pointed out that Verstappen rarely commented on teammate controversies. Historically, he allowed the paddock to speak while letting performance answer. Many believed Verstappen would continue focusing purely on racing, leaving management decisions to Horner and Marko.

As pre-season testing approached, tension increased. Each lap time would feed narratives and predictions. Whether Ecclestone’s claims would age well remained uncertain. Formula 1 had always been a combination of precision engineering, psychological pressure, and political maneuvering.

If Red Bull truly planned to bet on Hadjar, they would be making one of the riskiest moves of the hybrid era. Replacing experience with raw youth could either create a historic superteam or destabilize championship momentum. Few teams dared such a gamble.

In the end, Ecclestone’s explosive comments reignited an old truth: Formula 1 thrives on controversy as much as competition. Drivers battle on track, but narratives battle off-track, shaping perceptions, sponsorships, and legacies. Whether Pérez was treated harshly or fairly, the story became part of F1 mythology.

For now, one thing seemed certain—Max Verstappen would once again enter the new season as the favorite. But the question lingered: would the absence of Pérez prove to be an advantage, or would Red Bull discover too late that harmony mattered as much as horsepower in their pursuit of dominance?