McLaren’s $30 million case against Alex Palou just got a lot more granular. Newly public court filings lay out, line by line, what the team says it lost when the Spaniard walked away from a signed IndyCar deal and returned to Chip Ganassi Racing — right down to driver payouts, sponsor renegotiations and an eye‑catching tally of “what might have been.”
The backdrop is familiar. In 2022, Palou inked a three‑year McLaren agreement covering the 2024–26 IndyCar seasons, with the alluring possibility of a Formula 1 pathway attached. He’d already angled for McLaren F1 testing while still a Ganassi driver. But with McLaren’s 2025 F1 seats locked by Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri, Palou ultimately stayed put at CGR. He acknowledges that decision breached his McLaren contract; he disputes that it cost McLaren anything meaningful.
McLaren says otherwise — to the tune of $30 million. The team argues Palou’s U‑turn forced a scramble that rippled through its IndyCar roster and its sponsorship book. The filings outline a driver carousel that included hiring then parting with David Malukas, and short‑term stints for Callum Ilott and Théo Pourchaire, before Nolan Siegel stepped in. It also cites the decision to elevate Pato O’Ward into an F1 reserve role — a move McLaren claims wouldn’t have been necessary had Palou joined — noting O’Ward’s overall deal exceeds $10 million.
The numbers get specific. McLaren says it paid out $25,000 to Malukas, $50,000 to Ilott and $87,500 to Pourchaire. Siegel, by contrast, paid $1.25 million to contest the final 10 races of 2024 and continues to bring funding into 2025, with the current amount redacted. After offsets — and excluding the $9 million McLaren intended to pay Palou across three years — the team pegs lost profit tied strictly to salaries at $1,512,500.
But the heft sits with sponsorship. McLaren claims it had to renegotiate with NTT Data/NTT, resulting in a $7,266,902 reduction in fees, plus a separate $15,564,970 hit to sponsor benefits linked to its Formula 1 program. Add $5.5 million in reduced backing from non‑NTT partners and $1 million in foregone performance‑based revenue, and the damages column starts to resemble a championship spreadsheet.
Palou’s camp isn’t buying it. His lawyers argue McLaren hasn’t suffered loss, call it “unusual” for IndyCar sponsorships to hinge on an unconfirmed driver, and note the NTT deal contained no driver‑dependent clauses. They also question whether O’Ward’s F1 reserve promotion can be pinned on Palou, and whether McLaren can claw back Palou’s signing bonus if the promised F1 opportunity never materialized.
Strip away the legalese and this is the real fight: can a team prove a driver’s star power was central enough to trigger eight‑figure sponsor changes across IndyCar and F1? If McLaren makes that case, it sets a spicy precedent. If not, their math looks a lot thinner. Either way, the next laps are in court.
