McLaren’s chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his longstanding concerns about the growing trend of multi‑ownership and close technical partnerships within Formula 1, a debate that has resurfaced as Mercedes evaluates the possibility of acquiring a minority share in Alpine. Brown’s comments underscore a broader worry that such arrangements could erode the competitive balance of the sport, and he argues that the only acceptable relationship between teams should be a simple customer‑supplier dynamic for power units.
Brown has been a vocal opponent of what he labels “A‑B teams” – a situation where one outfit enjoys a privileged link to another, either through shared ownership, a strategic alliance, or an extensive technical collaboration. The most prominent examples include Red Bull’s ownership of both Red Bull Racing and its sister team, formerly known as Scuderia Toro Rosso and now the Racing Bulls, a relationship that dates back to 2005. Similarly, Ferrari maintains a long‑standing technical partnership with the American‑based Haas team, providing them with chassis components and engineering support.
The latest development involves Mercedes, which has been reported as one of several parties interested in purchasing the 24 percent share of Alpine currently held by the U.S. investment firm Otro Capital. Alpine is majority‑owned by the Renault Group, while former Formula 1 magnate Flavio Briatore, who serves as an executive advisor to the Enstone‑based squad, has suggested that the current ownership structure mirrors a typical corporate scenario: "Usually in a company, 75 percent decides and the remaining 25 percent is a passenger, and that is the reality here." While such arrangements are not prohibited under the sport’s regulations, Brown, whose McLaren cars run on Mercedes engines, insists that his stance applies universally: "Regardless of who is involved, I frown upon it." In an interview with Sky Sports News, Brown reiterated his position, 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." He cited specific incidents that illustrate his concerns.
For example, he recalled the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix, where Daniel Ricciardo, driving for the Racing Bulls, took a point away from McLaren, indirectly benefiting Max Verstappen and Red Bull. Brown also highlighted the rapid transfer of intellectual property and personnel between affiliated teams, noting that staff can move overnight, giving the receiving team a competitive edge without the usual cost‑cap penalties. Brown drew an analogy with football to make his point clearer: "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 deeper pockets. That’s the risk we face in Formula 1." He argued that the only permissible relationship should be that of a power‑unit supplier to a customer team, and that each of the eleven entries should strive for maximum independence.
During a McLaren media briefing, Brown added that he had raised these issues during the most recent Concorde Agreement negotiations, which involve all of the sport’s stakeholders. "I think it’s being managed now," he said, "but we’ve seen incidents in the past and we need to eliminate them, not expand them." While Brown expressed admiration for Red Bull’s achievements over the past two decades—acknowledging the strategic decision to acquire the struggling Minardi team in 2005 to create a second outfit—he warned against replicating that model.
"I’m glad to see that the Racing Bulls and Red Bull don’t look like the same race car," he noted, emphasizing that visual differentiation alone does not erase the underlying concerns about shared resources and data. Brown also mentioned his conversations with Laurent Mekies, Red Bull’s team principal, who has been transparent about the challenges of managing dual‑team ownership. "I’m not picking on him in particular, but he’s the only one who has 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 said.
The Concorde Agreement discussions have reportedly touched on whether, over time, one of the affiliated teams should be divested to preserve competition. Brown stressed that while he appreciates the historical contributions of Red Bull to the sport, any expansion of the multi‑team model would be detrimental. "As long as it’s managed and watched, it’s tolerable, 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, Wolff said Mercedes is simply assessing the strategic 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," he explained. In addition to Mercedes, a consortium that includes former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has also shown interest in the Alpine shareholding, indicating that the market for minority stakes in F1 teams is becoming increasingly active. Brown’s remarks arrive at a time when the sport is preparing for its next round of races, with the Miami Grand Prix scheduled for May 1‑3, featuring the season’s second Sprint weekend. The event will be broadcast live on Sky Sports F1, and fans can stream the coverage via NOW without a long‑term contract.
Overall, Zak Brown’s renewed critique highlights a fundamental tension in modern Formula 1: the desire for financial stability and technical collaboration versus the need to safeguard a level playing field. As teams continue to explore ownership structures and strategic partnerships, the governing bodies will need to balance these interests carefully to ensure the sport remains fair, competitive, and exciting for both participants and spectators alike.