McLaren chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his long‑standing opposition to the practice of multi‑ownership and close‑knit partnerships between Formula 1 teams, a stance that has gained fresh relevance following reports that Mercedes is contemplating the purchase of a minority share in Alpine. Brown has been an outspoken critic of what he labels "A‑B teams" – situations where one outfit enjoys a privileged relationship with another, either through shared ownership structures or technical collaborations that go beyond the usual customer‑supplier dynamic. The issue of intertwined team relationships is not new to the sport. Red Bull, for instance, has owned two separate entries since 2005, while Ferrari maintains a historic technical partnership with Haas.
The latest development involves Mercedes, which is said to be among several parties evaluating a potential acquisition of the 24 percent stake in Alpine currently held by Otro Capital, an American investment firm. Alpine’s majority shareholder is the Renault Group, and the team’s executive advisor, Flavio Briatore, has remarked that in a typical corporate arrangement, a 75‑percent majority decides while the remaining 25‑percent is effectively a passenger – a description he feels mirrors the current situation. Although such ownership models are permissible under the sport’s regulations, Brown, whose McLaren cars are powered by Mercedes engines, insists that his concerns apply universally. "Regardless of who is involved, I frown upon it," he said, emphasizing that any cross‑team connections should be limited strictly to the provision of power units and nothing more.
He reiterated his position to Sky Sports News, stating, "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." Brown cited concrete examples to illustrate his point. He recalled the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix, where a fastest‑lap point earned by Daniel Ricciardo while driving for the Racing Bulls (the Red Bull junior team) effectively assisted Max Verstappen and Red Bull’s main effort.
He also highlighted the transfer of intellectual property and personnel between teams, noting that staff can move overnight, granting the receiving team a competitive edge without any direct financial outlay – an advantage that can skew the cost‑cap system. During a McLaren media briefing, Brown drew an analogy with football, asking listeners to imagine two Premier League clubs owned by the same conglomerate. "One club would face relegation if it loses, while the other could afford to lose without dire consequences," he said.
"That’s the risk we face in F1." He argued that the relationship between a chassis constructor and an engine supplier should be the furthest extent of any collaboration. "All eleven teams should be as independent as possible," Brown asserted, urging the sport’s governance to keep ownership structures separate and transparent.
Brown also referenced the ongoing Concorde Agreement negotiations, indicating that he raised his concerns during the latest round of talks. "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 explained.
While he expressed admiration for Red Bull’s two‑decade investment in the sport – recalling how the Austrian company rescued the struggling Minardi team in 2005 to create a second entry – he warned against replicating that model without strict oversight. He noted a recent conversation with Laurent Mekies, Red Bull’s team principal, who, according to Brown, has been candid about the challenges of running two teams. "He’s the only one who has two teams and he’s been very open and transparent: ‘If you see something you don’t like, let’s just talk about it,’" Brown said, suggesting that Red Bull recognises the potential pitfalls and is reluctant to push the envelope further.
The Concorde Agreement discussions have even touched on the possibility that one of the co‑owned teams might eventually need to be divested. Brown stressed that while he respects the contributions of Red Bull and other multi‑team owners to the sport’s growth, any expansion of that model would be a mistake.
On the Mercedes side, team principal Toto Wolff clarified that the German outfit is not seeking to turn Alpine into a junior team to its works squad, despite supplying engines to Alpine from this season onward. Wolff said Mercedes is merely evaluating the merits of a minority investment and has not reached a decision.
"We are looking at it from different angles, and we haven’t come to any conclusions," he told reporters. "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 identified as an interested party in the Alpine shareholding. The broader context of these ownership debates comes as Formula 1 prepares for its next round of racing, with the Miami Grand Prix scheduled for May 1‑3, featuring the season’s second sprint weekend. Fans can follow the action live on Sky Sports F1, with streaming options available through NOW without a long‑term contract.
In summary, Zak Brown’s renewed criticism underscores a growing unease about the concentration of influence within Formula 1. His call for clear boundaries – limiting relationships to engine supply and preserving the independence of each of the sport’s eleven teams – reflects a broader desire to safeguard competitive fairness.
As major manufacturers like Mercedes explore minority stakes and historic partnerships continue to evolve, the sport’s governing bodies will face increasing pressure to define and enforce rules that prevent any single entity from gaining undue advantage, thereby ensuring that the thrill of racing remains rooted in merit rather than ownership structures.