McLaren chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his long‑standing opposition to the practice of multi‑team ownership and close technical alliances within Formula 1, a stance that has taken on fresh relevance following reports that Mercedes is evaluating a minority investment in Alpine. Brown has consistently warned against the emergence of what he describes as "A‑B teams" – situations where one outfit enjoys a privileged relationship with another, either through shared ownership structures or deep technical partnerships, potentially undermining the sport’s competitive balance.
The issue is not new. Red Bull, for example, has owned two separate racing entities since 2005, while Ferrari maintains a long‑standing technical partnership with Haas. Most recently, it emerged that Mercedes is among several parties interested in acquiring the 24 percent share of Alpine currently held by the U.S.
investment firm Otro Capital. Alpine’s majority shareholder remains the Renault Group, and Flavio Briatore, who serves as an executive adviser to the Enstone‑based team, has remarked that in a typical corporate arrangement the majority owner (75 percent) makes the decisions while the minority partner (25 percent) is essentially a passenger. Although such ownership configurations are permitted under the current regulations, Brown – whose own McLaren cars are powered by Mercedes engines – insists that his concerns apply universally, regardless of which manufacturers or investors are involved. "I frown upon it," he said, emphasizing that the only acceptable cross‑team relationship should be the supply of power units, nothing more.
In an interview with Sky Sports News, Brown explained his position in detail: "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. We've seen fastest laps from one team, for instance Daniel Ricciardo in a Racing Bulls car taking a point away from McLaren to help Max Verstappen and Red Bull at the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix.
We've seen intellectual property transferred from one team to another, and staff moving overnight between rivals – sometimes with a contractual freeze that prevents a competitor from hiring them until 2028. Those moves give a sporting advantage and, because they bypass the cost‑cap, they effectively provide a financial edge without the need to write a cheque." 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 parent company. That's the risk we face in F1 if ownership becomes too intertwined." He continued, "So I think having engine power units as suppliers is as far as it should go. In my view, all eleven teams should be as independent as possible." During the latest round of Concorde Agreement negotiations, Brown raised these concerns again, noting that while the sport is currently managing the problem, past incidents demonstrate that the issue has not been fully resolved.
"We need to eliminate it, not expand it," he said. Brown also expressed admiration for Red Bull’s achievements over the past two decades, acknowledging that their acquisition of the struggling Minardi team in 2005 was a pivotal moment that allowed them to field a second outfit.
However, he warned that the Red Bull model should not become a template for the future. "I'm glad to see that the Racing Bulls and Red Bull cars look distinct now," he added, indicating that the sport has taken steps to keep the two entries separate. He recounted conversations 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 recognise the issue and don’t want to push the envelope further," Brown explained.
Brown also referenced discussions within the Concorde Agreement about whether, over time, one of the co‑owned teams should be divested to preserve competition. He reiterated his respect for Red Bull’s contributions to the sport but cautioned that any further expansion of multi‑team ownership would be detrimental. "As long as it is managed and monitored, it’s acceptable, but adding to it would be a mistake for the sport," he concluded. 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, Mercedes is simply assessing whether a minority stake makes strategic sense. "We are looking at it from different angles and haven’t come to any conclusions yet. We want to know whether it makes sense," Wolff said.
A separate consortium that includes former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has also been reported as an interested party in the Alpine shareholding, highlighting the broader appetite for strategic stakes in the sport. The debate over multi‑team ownership comes at a time when Formula 1 is gearing up for another busy weekend. The series returns on May 1‑3 for the Miami Grand Prix, which will also host the season’s second Sprint race, all broadcast live on Sky Sports F1. Fans can stream the action via NOW without a long‑term contract, and additional coverage, including podcasts and WhatsApp updates, is available for those who want deeper insight into the sport’s evolving landscape.
In summary, Zak Brown’s renewed criticism underscores a growing unease among team principals about the potential erosion of competitive parity caused by shared ownership and technical synergies. While current regulations allow such arrangements, Brown argues that the sport should limit cross‑team interactions to the supply of power units and enforce stricter independence among the eleven entries. As Mercedes, Red Bull, and other major players explore investment opportunities, the conversation about how to safeguard Formula 1’s integrity is likely to remain a focal point of future Concorde Agreement negotiations.