McLaren's chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his long‑standing objections to the growing trend of multi‑ownership and close technical ties between Formula 1 teams, a debate that has resurfaced following reports that Mercedes is evaluating a minority investment in Alpine. Brown, who has been an outspoken opponent of what he labels "A‑B teams" – arrangements where one organization exerts a disproportionate influence over another through shared ownership, technical collaborations, or supply agreements – used his recent media appearance to underline why he believes such structures threaten the sport's competitive integrity. Brown's criticism is not new. For more than a decade he has warned that when a single entity holds significant stakes in two separate entries, the balance of competition can be easily skewed.
He points to several high‑profile examples: Red Bull's ownership of both the Red Bull Racing and AlphaTauri (formerly Toro Rosso) outfits since 2005, Ferrari's longstanding technical partnership with Haas, and the latest speculation that Mercedes might acquire a 24 percent share of Alpine currently owned by the US‑based investment firm Otro Capital. While Alpine is majority‑owned by the Renault Group, the involvement of a major manufacturer such as Mercedes has reignited concerns about the blurring of lines between independent competitors.
During an interview with Sky Sports News, Brown made it clear that his stance applies universally, regardless of which teams or manufacturers are involved. "I have been saying for ten years that I don't like co‑ownership, I don't like A‑B teams," he said.
"I think it runs a high risk of compromising the sporting integrity of the sport." He emphasized that, in his view, the only acceptable relationship between two teams should be the provision of power‑units – nothing more. "We have seen fastest laps from one team, Daniel Ricciardo when driving for Racing Bulls taking a point away from McLaren to help Max Verstappen and Red Bull at the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix. We have seen intellectual property transferred from one team to another, and staff moving overnight, giving a clear sporting advantage that can also translate into a cost‑cap benefit," Brown added. To illustrate the potential danger, Brown drew a parallel with football: "Can you imagine a Premier League game where two clubs are owned by the same group?
One club could survive relegation because the other can afford to lose. That's the risk we face in F1." He argued that each of the eleven entries should operate as independently as possible, with the sole permissible link being the customer‑supplier relationship for engines. "Having engine power units as suppliers is as far as it should go," he insisted.
Brown also referenced ongoing discussions within the sport's governance framework. He said he raised his concerns during the latest round of Concorde Agreement negotiations, which involve all F1 stakeholders. "I think it's being managed now, but we've seen incidents in the past and we need to do away with it, not increase it," he told reporters at a McLaren media event. While he expressed admiration for Red Bull's investment and development over two decades – noting the historic takeover of the struggling Minardi team in 2005 to create a second outfit – he warned that replicating that model today could be detrimental.
"I'm glad to see, quite frankly, that the Racing Bulls and Red Bull don't look like the same race car," he said, indicating that distinct technical identities are essential. Brown also highlighted the openness of Red Bull's team principal Laurent Mekies, who, according to Brown, has been candid about the challenges of running two teams. "He's the only one who's got two teams and he's been very open and transparent: 'If you see something you don't like, let's just chat about it.' So I think they recognise it and don't want to push the envelope," Brown noted. Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff, when asked about the Alpine stake, clarified that the German manufacturer is not seeking to turn Alpine into a junior team to its works outfit.
Instead, Wolff said Mercedes is simply assessing whether a minority share makes commercial sense. "We are looking at it from different angles, and we haven't come to any conclusions," he explained.
A separate consortium, reportedly involving former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner, has also shown interest in the Alpine shares, adding another layer of complexity to the ownership debate. The broader context of these discussions is the sport's evolving regulatory environment. With the 2026 season set to introduce new power‑unit specifications and a revised cost cap, the financial pressures on teams are intensifying.
In such a climate, the temptation to secure strategic partnerships or equity stakes may grow, potentially accelerating the formation of A‑B team structures. Brown warned that without vigilant oversight, these trends could undermine the principle of equal competition that F1 strives to uphold. In summary, Zak Brown's renewed critique serves as a reminder that the sport's governing bodies, team owners, and commercial partners must remain vigilant about the implications of multi‑team ownership.
While collaborations and customer‑supplier relationships are an integral part of Formula 1's ecosystem, the line between cooperation and undue influence must be clearly drawn. As the Concorde Agreement negotiations continue and potential investment deals are explored, the F1 community will be watching closely to see whether the sport can preserve its competitive fairness while still attracting the financial backing it needs to thrive.