Palou pulls Alonso into the witness box as McLaren court fight turns IndyCar-shaped
Alex Palou’s contract saga with McLaren has taken a sharp turn into the world’s most famous oval. In testimony at London’s High Court, the reigning IndyCar champion name-checked Fernando Alonso to argue that McLaren oversold his Formula 1 prospects — and that a move to its IndyCar outfit never looked like a winning play.
Palou’s defence hinges on a simple claim: he felt deceived. As his solicitor Nick De Marco KC put it, McLaren CEO Zak Brown “made [Palou] think that there was an opportunity to have the full-time F1 seat” as leverage to nail down his IndyCar signature. Palou told the court he initially believed Brown was genuine. He doesn’t anymore.
The backstory is familiar. McLaren announced Palou in 2022; Chip Ganassi Racing promptly exercised its option and said he wasn’t going anywhere. A compromise followed: Palou would stay at Ganassi for the 2023 IndyCar season while moonlighting as McLaren’s F1 reserve, with an Arrow McLaren IndyCar switch slated for 2024 and a potential path toward F1. Then came the U-turn. Palou walked away, McLaren sued for $20.7 million in damages, and the pair are now trading exhibits in front of a judge.
What nobody expected was Alonso’s name to headline the supporting cast.
To make his point about machinery and opportunity, Palou reached for one of the most famous guest appearances in Indy 500 lore. Alonso, a two-time F1 world champion and as complete a racing driver as you’ll find, had three cracks at the 500 during his F1 hiatus. In 2017, with Andretti Autosport in a McLaren-branded entry, he qualified strongly and led before the Honda gave up late. In 2019, attempting the race with McLaren Racing, he didn’t even make the field — bumped by Kyle Kaiser and Juncos in a storyline that still stings back in Woking. And in 2020, with Arrow McLaren, Alonso ground to 21st.
“If a driver does not have the machinery and the best team around, then that driver cannot win races,” Palou told the court. “There are many examples of big names in motorsport who were not able to perform because of the machinery they were given.”
And Alonso? “Probably one of the best drivers in the recent era,” Palou said, before laying out the 2017 near-miss and the 2019 failure to qualify. The implication was obvious: if Alonso couldn’t turn an Arrow McLaren one-off into glory, why should Palou bank his prime on a full season there?
“Maybe a driver can in one race do something a little more aggressive, but I do not consider that a driver can during the course of a full year or four or five years have too much impact,” he added. “This has been seen with many other drivers, such as Fernando Alonso.”
Dragging Alonso into a court case is a bold rhetorical choice — and you can see why Palou went there. The Indy 500 is the sport’s great equaliser and its most unforgiving mirror. It rewards the best-prepared organisations more than the biggest names on the grid. Palou’s argument is that he didn’t want to discover that the hard way, not when he was already in a winning ecosystem.
History has since been kind to that calculation. Palou stayed, then steamrolled: IndyCar titles in 2023, 2024 and 2025 with Ganassi, the sort of dominance that rarely happens in that series. Meanwhile, the irony isn’t lost on anyone that McLaren’s F1 arm is thriving while its legal team goes to work. The team wrapped up the 2025 Constructors’ Championship in Singapore, and Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri have been busy turning the drivers’ fight into an in-house duel, with Max Verstappen still lurking.
McLaren has rejected Palou’s “deception” claim and insists he refused to honour binding agreements in both IndyCar and F1. Brown told media at the time Palou had “no intention of honouring his contract,” and the team wants damages to match. The courtroom back-and-forth has already featured talk of destroyed evidence, leaked messages and who promised what, when.
What’s striking here is less the legalese and more the philosophy underneath it. Palou’s case puts a spotlight on the central truth of modern top-level racing: talent will only take you as far as the car and team allow. He believed McLaren oversold a path to F1 and undersold the grind of lifting its IndyCar programme to Ganassi-and-Penske territory. So he stayed put. The trophies since have made the argument for him.
Whether a judge buys that logic — and whether citing Alonso’s Indy bruises moves the needle — is another matter. For now, it adds an extra layer of theatre. One of the best drivers of his generation is being used as Exhibit A in a fight over another’s future, and the court of public opinion will likely render a verdict long before the High Court does.
The trial is ongoing. Don’t expect the headlines to quiet down any time soon.
