McLaren’s chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his long‑standing opposition to the practice of multi‑ownership and close technical alliances within Formula 1, a stance that has taken on fresh relevance after reports surfaced that Mercedes may be interested in acquiring a minority share in the Alpine team. Brown has been an outspoken detractor of what he terms “A‑B teams” – situations where one outfit enjoys a deeper, often privileged, relationship with another, either through shared ownership structures or through tightly knit technical partnerships.
He argues that such arrangements can undermine the competitive balance of the sport, creating a de‑facto hierarchy where one team benefits from resources, data, or personnel that should be exclusive to its own operation. The issue is not hypothetical. Since 2005, Red Bull has owned two separate entries on the grid, while Ferrari maintains a long‑standing technical partnership with Haas that gives the American outfit access to Ferrari‑developed components and engineering insight. More recently, it emerged that Mercedes is among a group of potential investors looking at the 24 percent stake in Alpine currently held by Otro Capital, a U.S.
investment firm. The majority of Alpine is owned by the Renault Group, and the team’s executive adviser, Flavio Briatore, has suggested that the typical corporate arrangement sees a 75 percent controlling shareholder and a 25 percent passive partner – a model he believes reflects the reality of the Alpine shareholding. Although the sport’s regulations do not forbid such ownership structures, Brown—whose McLaren cars run on Mercedes power units—maintains that his objections apply universally. "Regardless of who is involved, I frown upon it," he said, emphasizing that cross‑team relationships should be limited to the provision of customer engines and nothing more.
In an interview with Sky Sports News, Brown reiterated his decade‑long stance: "I’ve been saying for ten years I don’t like co‑ownership, I don’t like A‑B teams. I think it runs a high risk of compromising the sporting integrity of the sport." He cited concrete examples to illustrate his concerns. At the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix, for instance, a fastest‑lap point earned by Daniel Ricciardo while driving for the Racing Bulls (Red Bull’s second entry) effectively helped Max Verstappen and the main Red Bull squad. "We have seen IP transfer from one team to another.
We’ve seen staff move from one team to another overnight where I have to wait until 2028," Brown explained, pointing out that such moves can give a team a competitive edge without the need to spend under the cost cap, effectively creating a hidden financial advantage. Brown likened the situation to a hypothetical Premier League scenario where two clubs are owned by the same conglomerate. "One’s going to get relegated if they lose.
The other can afford to lose. That’s the risk we run in F1," he warned. He concluded that the only acceptable boundary should be the supply of power units: "Engine suppliers should be as far as it goes, and all eleven teams should be as independent as possible." He also noted that he raised these concerns during the most recent Concorde Agreement negotiations, a set of contracts that define the commercial and regulatory framework for the sport. "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," Brown said.
While Brown praised Red Bull for its two‑decade investment in the sport and acknowledged the historic context—Red Bull’s acquisition of the struggling Minardi team in 2005 to create a second entry—he argued that the model should not be replicated. "I’m glad to see, quite frankly, that the Racing Bulls and the Red Bull don’t look like the same race car," he added, indicating that visual and technical differentiation is a step in the right direction.
He also referenced conversations with Red Bull team principal Laurent Mekies, noting that Mekies has been transparent 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 said. Brown recalled that the Concorde Agreement had previously entertained the idea that one of the co‑owned teams might eventually need to be divested to preserve competition.
He expressed a “huge appreciation” for what Red Bull has contributed to Formula 1, but stressed that any expansion of the multi‑team model would be a mistake for the sport’s health. 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, Mercedes is simply evaluating whether a minority investment makes commercial sense. "We are looking at it from different angles, and we haven’t come to any conclusions," Wolff said. "We want to know whether it makes sense." Adding another layer to the ownership intrigue, a consortium that includes former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has also been reported as a potential buyer of the Alpine share, suggesting that interest in the team extends beyond Mercedes.
The broader debate touches on the fundamental question of how Formula 1 should balance commercial investment with sporting fairness. As the sport continues to attract new money and as teams look for innovative ways to secure financial stability, the pressure to maintain a level playing field grows. Critics like Brown argue that without clear limits, the sport risks becoming a series of affiliated clubs rather than a competition of independent entities, eroding the excitement that comes from unpredictable, hard‑fought races.
The upcoming Miami Grand Prix, scheduled for May 1‑3, will be the next opportunity for fans to see how these dynamics play out on track. The event, which includes the season’s second Sprint weekend, will be broadcast live on Sky Sports F1, with streaming options available via NOW without a long‑term contract.
As the paddock watches closely, the conversation about ownership, partnership, and the future structure of Formula 1 is likely to remain a hot topic throughout the season.