McLaren's chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his long‑standing objections to the growing trend of multi‑team ownership and close technical alliances within Formula 1, a debate that has been reignited by recent reports that Mercedes is evaluating a minority investment in Alpine. Brown has been an outspoken opponent of what he labels "A‑B teams" – situations where one racing outfit enjoys a privileged relationship with another, either through shared ownership, a technical partnership, or a combination of both. He argues that such arrangements can erode the sport’s competitive balance and undermine its sporting integrity. The issue is not new.
Red Bull has owned two Formula 1 entries since 2005, initially acquiring the struggling Minardi team and rebranding it as Toro Rosso (now Scuderia AlphaTauri). Ferrari maintains a long‑standing technical partnership with the American‑based Haas team, providing them with power units and engineering support. Most recently, it emerged that Mercedes is among several parties interested in purchasing the 24 percent share of Alpine currently held by the US investment vehicle Otro Capital.
Alpine’s majority shareholder remains the Renault Group, and the team’s executive advisor, Flavio Briatore, has suggested that in a typical corporate structure the majority owner makes the decisions while the minority partner is effectively a passenger. While the FIA’s regulations do not forbid such ownership structures, Brown, whose McLaren cars run on Mercedes engines, insists that his concerns apply universally: "Regardless of who is involved, I frown upon it." 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," he said.
He cited several recent incidents that, in his view, illustrate the potential for abuse. At the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix, for example, Daniel Ricciardo, driving for the Racing Bulls (Red Bull’s sister team), took a point away from McLaren that ultimately helped Max Verstappen and Red Bull secure the race win.
"We have seen fastest laps from one team, IP transfer from one team to another, and staff moving overnight between teams," Brown added, noting that such moves can give a competitive edge without the usual financial penalties because they bypass the cost‑cap system. Brown likened the situation to a hypothetical scenario in football: "Imagine a Premier League where two clubs are owned by the same group. One could afford to lose and still stay up, while the other faces relegation.
That’s the risk we run in F1 if we allow multiple teams under a single umbrella." His proposed solution is straightforward: the relationship between teams should stop at the supply of power units. "Engine suppliers should be the limit of any partnership. All eleven teams need to be as independent as possible," he argued. During the latest round of Concorde Agreement negotiations, Brown raised these concerns with the sport’s governing bodies.
He believes progress is being made, noting that the FIA and the commercial rights holders are now more aware of the need to prevent the proliferation of multi‑team ownership. "We’ve seen incidents in the past, and we need to do away with them, not increase them," he said. Brown also expressed a nuanced view of Red Bull’s model. He acknowledges the impressive achievements Red Bull has delivered over two decades, turning a modest investment into a dominant force.
However, he cautions against replicating that blueprint. "I’m glad to see that the Racing Bulls and Red Bull don’t look like the same race car," he remarked, emphasizing that the two outfits operate with distinct identities and resources. He recalled conversations with Red Bull’s team principal Laurent Mekies, noting that Mekies has been transparent about the challenges of owning 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.’ So I think they recognise the issue and don’t want to push the envelope further," Brown said. The Concorde Agreement discussions have even touched on the possibility of forcing a divestiture of one of the linked teams over time, though Brown stressed that any action should be measured and not punitive. "We have huge appreciation for what Red Bull has done for the sport, but we must ensure it’s managed and watched," he concluded. Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff, when asked about the potential Alpine stake, clarified that the German manufacturer does not intend to turn Alpine into a junior team.
Instead, they are simply assessing whether a minority share makes commercial sense. "We are looking at it from different angles and haven’t reached any conclusions yet," Wolff said. Other interested parties include a consortium featuring former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner, highlighting the broader appetite for strategic investments in the sport.
As the F1 calendar heads into the Miami Grand Prix, the debate over team independence versus multi‑team ownership is likely to remain front and centre. Brown’s message is clear: while investment and collaboration are essential for the sport’s growth, the line must be drawn at any arrangement that could give one team an unfair advantage over the others. The FIA’s ongoing regulatory review will determine whether these concerns translate into concrete rule changes that preserve the level playing field that fans and competitors alike cherish.