Maverick Viñales has brought attention to a tough clause in his KTM contract: he can miss three races because of injury without a pay reduction, but his salary is cut from the fourth absence. The Tech3 rider continued racing with a painful shoulder because, as he put it, staying at home would mean going unpaid.

The injury began in the middle of the previous year, when Viñales suffered a serious shoulder fracture in a crash during German Grand Prix qualifying. He then missed three early-season rounds for surgery and was absent from the first four races after the summer break.

He returned at the Japanese Grand Prix and finished 14th, but the shoulder continued to affect him at the Indonesian Grand Prix and in Australia. Viñales described a choice between riding through the pain and taking the financial hit attached to another absence.

A contract issue beyond one rider

The precise trigger remains unclear: the three-race allowance may refer either to consecutive absences or to the total number of races missed. Under the cumulative interpretation, Viñales had missed seven Grands Prix from the 18 rounds he had started in 2026. He had also missed eight races through injury in 2025.

Viñales says riders need to push for different contract terms because injuries are common in a dangerous sport. He cited Toprak Razgatlıoğlu, saying the rider will miss six races after his injury. The argument points to a broader need for stronger collective representation when riders negotiate their working conditions.

The issue takes on added importance ahead of 2027. The weekend format is expected to introduce sprint qualifying, increasing the physical load on riders. Since the sprint format arrived in 2023, the average number of riders missing a round has risen from one to 2.5. Only one 2026 round included the entire full-time grid, compared with two in 2025 and none in 2023.

Viñales has no confirmed place on the 2027 grid. He has been linked with a Ducati test-rider position, although no agreement has been confirmed. His situation shows how directly injury recovery can become tied to a rider’s income when a contract penalises extended absences.