McLaren not 'genuine' about giving me F1 seat, Alex Palou tells court

By Callum Parke, PA Law Reporter

Driver Alex Palou has told a court in the UK that McLaren Racing boss Zak Brown used the opportunity to drive in Formula One as a “negotiating tactic” to get him to sign for its IndyCar team, but that the plan was not “genuine”.

Mr Palou and two companies connected to him are being sued for around $21 million (€18 million) by McLaren Indy LLC and McLaren Racing, which run the Arrow McLaren IndyCar team and McLaren’s F1 team.

It comes after the Spaniard breached a contract, agreed in 2022, that he would drive for Arrow McLaren in 2024, 2025 and 2026.

Mr Palou admits to the breach but disputes he should pay damages at a trial in London, and began giving evidence on Friday.

In his witness statement, the 28-year-old said he breached the McLaren deal as the company showed a “lack of commitment” to getting him into F1, which was his “only attraction” to joining.

I now consider that Zak made me think that there was an opportunity to have the full-time F1 seat as a negotiating tactic to get me to sign for McLaren’s IndyCar team

He said: “Zak told me he believed we could make it happen and that he would give me all the preparation I needed to be an F1 driver for McLaren.

“At the time, I thought he was genuine.

“I now consider that Zak made me think that there was an opportunity to have the full-time F1 seat as a negotiating tactic to get me to sign for McLaren’s IndyCar team.”

Mr Palou won the 2021, 2023, 2024 and 2025 IndyCar championships and the 109th Indianapolis 500 race earlier this year.

He raced for Chip Ganassi Racing (CGR) in the IndyCar series before agreeing to drive Arrow McLaren’s Car 6 in 2022, but then returned to CGR the following year.

In his statement, he said that shortly after announcing he would be driving for Arrow McLaren, he saw tweets from current McLaren F1 driver Oscar Piastri that the Australian would be joining its F1 team.

Mr Palou said this was the “first time things changed” and left him feeling “very upset, worried and angry”.

He said he still signed the deal, which also saw him become an F1 reserve driver, as he believed he would never drive an F1 car if he did not.

I had the F1 reserve role, but I did not really see the commitment from Zak any more to get me to F1 full-time

He later returned to CGR as he felt “frustrated and a bit deceived”, and said that McLaren was “not at the level I was at with CGR”.

He said: “Another reason is the lack of commitment from McLaren on the F1 side. I had the F1 reserve role, but I did not really see the commitment from Zak any more to get me to F1 full-time.”

He continued: “My understanding is that McLaren were not happy and were apparently shocked about my decision to not pursue the opportunity I had with them and the plan regarding F1.

“However, I did not feel that those plans were genuine.

“It did not change from one day to the next, but from the relationship, conversations and attitudes, I could see that they were not willing to get me to F1, or help me get to F1 with another team, which was surprising.”

In his evidence, Mr Brown said Mr Palou “effectively rolled a grenade into the room and let it go off” through his departure.

He also said that while he believed Mr Palou could be a “real talent” in F1, the driver knew that he was “unable to make promises” about an F1 career, and “always knew exactly what the opportunities were and were not”.

Barristers for McLaren previously told the trial that Mr Palou was a “serial contract breaker” and that his departure had “serious and enduring consequences”.

It is seeking millions that it claims arose from the renegotiation of sponsorship deals, lost future revenue and other sums.

Paul Goulding KC, for McLaren, also said that a week before Mr Palou said he would not fulfil his contract, CGR had agreed to pay all damages and costs arising from the dispute.

Nick De Marco KC, for Mr Palou, said in written submissions that the renegotiation of sponsorship deals was not “anywhere near as bad” as had been claimed, and that the damages claim is “vastly inflated”.

Mr Palou said he did not expect that McLaren would enter sponsorship deals that were dependent on him driving for it, adding: “I considered that the only loss that was obvious was me not driving the car.”

The trial before Mr Justice Picken is due to conclude in November, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.