McLaren’s chief executive, Zak Brown, has once again voiced his long‑standing objections to the growing trend of multi‑ownership and close‑knit alliances between Formula 1 teams, a debate that has been reignited by recent reports that Mercedes may be interested in acquiring a minority share of Alpine. Brown, who has been an outspoken critic of what he describes as “A‑B teams” – situations where one outfit enjoys a deeper, often privileged relationship with another through ownership stakes or technical partnerships – used a recent media briefing to reiterate his concerns. The issue of multi‑team involvement is not new to the sport.
Red Bull, for instance, has owned two separate entries since 2005, while Ferrari maintains a long‑standing technical partnership with Haas. The latest development involves Mercedes, which is reportedly among a group of potential investors looking at the 24 percent share of Alpine currently held by the U.S. investment firm Otro Capital.
Alpine’s majority shareholder is the Renault Group, and the team’s executive advisor, Flavio Briatore, has remarked that in a typical corporate structure the majority owner (75 percent) makes the decisions while the minority holder (25 percent) is essentially a passenger. Although such arrangements are permissible under the sport’s regulations, Brown, whose McLaren cars run on Mercedes power units, argued that his stance applies universally: "Regardless of who is involved, I frown upon it." He believes that any cross‑team relationship should be limited strictly to the supply of customer power units and should not extend into deeper technical or operational collaboration. During an interview with Sky Sports News, Brown explained his position in detail: "I’ve been saying for ten years that I don’t like co‑ownership, I don’t like A‑B teams.
It creates a high risk of compromising the sporting integrity of Formula 1. We have seen fastest laps from one team, for example when Daniel Ricciardo, driving for Racing Bulls, took 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 between teams – something that, under the current regulations, can give a competitive edge without any direct financial transaction, effectively providing a cost‑cap advantage." Brown likened the situation to a hypothetical scenario in football: "Imagine a Premier League season where two clubs are owned by the same group. If one club gets relegated, the other can simply absorb the loss because it has the backing of the same owners. That is the danger we face in F1 if we allow multiple teams to be tied together too closely." He continued, "Engine supply should be as far as it goes.
All eleven teams need to be as independent as possible." Brown also noted that he raised these concerns during the most recent round of Concorde Agreement negotiations, emphasizing that while the issue is being managed, past incidents demonstrate the need for stricter safeguards: "We’ve seen incidents in the past and we need to do away with them, not increase them." Despite his criticism, Brown expressed genuine admiration for Red Bull’s achievements over the past two decades, acknowledging the historic acquisition of the struggling Minardi team in 2005 that gave Red Bull its second entry. However, he argued that this model should not become a template for the future. "I’m glad to see that Racing Bulls and Red Bull don’t look like the same race car," he said, indicating that the two teams now operate with distinct technical identities.
Brown also referenced conversations he’s had with Laurent Mekies, Red Bull’s team principal, noting that Mekies has been transparent about the challenges of running two teams: "He’s the only one with two teams and he’s been very open – ‘if you see something you don’t like, let’s talk about it.’ So I think they recognize the issue and don’t want to push the envelope." In the broader context of the Concorde Agreement, there have been discussions about whether one of the teams should eventually be divested to prevent conflicts of interest. Brown stressed that while he respects the contributions of multi‑team owners to the sport’s growth, any expansion of such arrangements would be detrimental: "As long as it’s managed and watched, it’s okay, but adding to it would be a mistake for the sport." Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff, when asked about the potential Alpine investment, clarified that the German manufacturer does not intend to turn Alpine into a junior team to its works outfit. Instead, Wolff said Mercedes is simply evaluating the merits of a minority stake: "We are looking at it from different angles and we haven’t come to any conclusions yet. We want to know whether it makes sense." A separate consortium that includes former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has also been reported as an interested party in the Alpine shareholding, underscoring the broader appetite for strategic investments within the sport.
The debate over multi‑team ownership touches on several key themes that are central to Formula 1’s future. First, there is the question of sporting fairness. When two teams share resources beyond the standard customer‑engine arrangement, the risk of data leakage or coordinated development increases, potentially giving the affiliated teams an advantage over the rest of the grid.
Second, there is the financial aspect. Under the cost‑cap regime, any indirect benefit – such as shared staff, facilities, or technology – can effectively bypass the spending limits, undermining the level playing field the cap was designed to create. Third, the issue raises concerns about fan perception and the sport’s brand. Spectators want to see genuine competition between independent entities, not a scenario where the outcome is subtly influenced by hidden alliances.
To address these challenges, several proposals have been floated within the F1 community. Some suggest tightening the definition of “customer” relationships to explicitly forbid any technical collaboration beyond the power‑unit supply. Others advocate for a mandatory separation of key personnel and intellectual property between affiliated teams, with strict penalties for breaches. A more radical idea would be to limit any entity to a single team ownership, effectively banning multi‑team stakes altogether.
Brown’s comments come at a time when the sport is undergoing significant regulatory changes, including the upcoming 2026 engine regulations and a revised financial model aimed at increasing sustainability. As F1 seeks to balance technological innovation with competitive equity, the question of how to manage team ownership structures will remain a pivotal issue. In summary, Zak Brown’s renewed criticism highlights the tension between the commercial realities of modern motorsport and the need to preserve the integrity of competition.
While Mercedes’ interest in Alpine reflects the strategic importance of having a foothold in multiple teams, it also serves as a reminder that the sport must carefully monitor and regulate such relationships to ensure that all teams compete on a fair and transparent basis. The ongoing discussions in the Concorde Agreement and among F1’s governing bodies will likely shape the final rules governing multi‑team ownership for years to come.