It is an old temptation that spares no one in the world of Formula 1: the desire to reduce complex stories, winning cycles, and narrow defeats to a single name, a single face, a single culprit. Helmut Marko, at the moment he ended his long-standing relationship with Red Bull, chose to give in to this temptation. And he did so in his unfiltered and sharp style, implying that Max Verstappen would have become world champion in 2025 if Christian Horner had been dismissed earlier.
This statement carries weight, especially given a fact that makes the wound even sharper: Verstappen finished the championship just two points behind Lando Norris. Two. A statistical trifle that, in the account of the veteran former manager, becomes the ultimate proof of mismanagement, of a man who supposedly created obstacles for the team at the decisive moment. The reference, of course, is to the so-called Horner-gate and the internal Red Bull struggle between the Austrian and Thai wings. A brutal and profoundly unfair narrative.
The winning Red Bull is a creation of Christian Horner
Horner was not just the team principal during the crisis. He was, above all, the political and organizational architect of a structure that transformed a team born almost as a marketing experiment into one of the most solid and feared entities in modern Formula 1. Under his management, Red Bull learned to speak the language of power, to sit at the right tables, to defend its regulatory and sporting interests as the great historic teams do.
It was also under Horner that Max Verstappen found the ideal environment to become what he is today: a complete driver, fully supported without ambiguity, protected during the most controversial phases of his development, and placed at the center of a technical and sporting project without compromises. Four world titles do not arise from nowhere, and they are not solely the product of a driver’s extraordinary talent. They are the result of a functioning ecosystem, a clear decision-making chain, and leadership capable of attracting and retaining top-tier expertise.
Above all, there is one key figure: Adrian Newey. This, too, seems to be a detail Marko has chosen to set aside. Adrian Newey did not simply “arrive” at Red Bull. He accepted a challenge that, at the time, seemed almost illogical: to prove himself again in a young team, far from the certainties of the great technical dynasties, led by management without historical pedigree in Formula 1. He did so because someone guaranteed him vision, autonomy, and stability. That someone was Christian Horner.
To claim today that everything is his fault, that simply removing him would have handed Verstappen a fifth consecutive title, is to deliberately ignore the complexity of a season decided by infinitesimal details. Two points can result from a wrong strategy, a slow pit stop, a safety car, or a yellow flag at the wrong moment. They can also reflect the natural end of a cycle after years of absolute dominance.
The relationship between Marko and Horner in recent years was marked by increasingly evident contrasts, divergent visions, and a power struggle never fully hidden. It is human, perhaps inevitable, that at the moment of departure the harshest, most accusatory version emerges. But an honest editorial cannot simply collect a statement and turn it into a verdict.
The probably uncomfortable truth for everyone is that Red Bull in 2025 suffered a sum of factors: rivals’ growth, strategic errors, a car that started poorly and required extensive mid-season corrections, internal tensions, and a regulatory context that limited comeback ambitions. To attribute it all to Christian Horner is not analysis; it is simplification. And Formula 1, as the recent history of the Milton Keynes franchise teaches, has never been a game for simplists.
If today Max Verstappen is a four-time world champion, if Red Bull has been the absolute benchmark in the category for years, a significant part of the credit also belongs to the man now pointed to as primarily responsible for the failure. Forgetting him may be convenient, but it does not make it any less true.
Leave a Reply