McLaren’s chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his long‑standing opposition to multi‑team ownership structures and close technical alliances within Formula 1, a stance that has resurfaced as Mercedes evaluates the prospect of purchasing a minority share in Alpine. Brown has consistently warned against what he labels “A‑B teams,” where one outfit enjoys a privileged relationship with another, either through shared ownership or a deep technical partnership that can blur the lines of competition.
The issue of intertwined teams is not new to the sport. Red Bull has owned two separate entries since 2005, while Ferrari maintains a historic technical partnership with Haas. More recently, reports emerged that Mercedes is among the parties interested in acquiring the 24 percent stake in Alpine currently held by the U.S.
investment firm Otro Capital. Alpine’s majority owner remains the Renault Group, and the team’s executive advisor, Flavio Briatore, has remarked that in a typical corporate setting the majority shareholder (75 percent) makes the decisions while the minority holder (25 percent) is essentially a passenger. This comment underscores the power dynamics that can arise when a large automotive manufacturer becomes a part‑owner of a rival team. Although such arrangements are permissible under the sport’s regulations, Brown—whose McLaren cars run on Mercedes power units—stressed that his concerns apply universally.
He told Sky Sports News, “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 added that any relationship beyond the supply of customer engines should be avoided, arguing that cross‑team ties can create unfair advantages that undermine the level playing field that Formula 1 strives to maintain.
Brown illustrated his point with several recent examples. He cited the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix, where a fastest lap set by Daniel Ricciardo while driving for the Racing Bulls (Red Bull’s junior team) effectively took a point away from McLaren, helping Max Verstappen and the senior Red Bull squad. 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 the need to spend under the cost cap.
“They get a sporting advantage there, sometimes that comes with some remuneration – they’re not going to have to write a cheque, so it’s a cost‑cap advantage,” Brown explained. Drawing an analogy to football, Brown asked reporters at a McLaren media event, “Can you imagine a Premier League game where two clubs are owned by the same group? One club would be relegated if it loses, while the other can afford to lose.
That’s the risk we run in F1.” He argued that the only acceptable relationship should be the supplier‑customer model for power units, and that all eleven teams should remain as independent as possible. Brown said he raised these concerns during the latest round of Concorde Agreement negotiations, emphasizing that the sport needs to move away from such entanglements rather than expand them.
He acknowledged the substantial contributions Red Bull has made to Formula 1 over the past two decades, including the takeover of the struggling Minardi team in 2005 to create a second entry. However, he believes that the Red Bull model should not be replicated.
“I’m glad to see, quite frankly, that the Racing Bulls and Red Bull don’t look like the same race car,” he noted, indicating that the two teams now operate with distinct designs. He also mentioned ongoing dialogue with Laurent Mekies, Red Bull’s team principal, who, according to Brown, is open about the challenges of running two teams. “He’s the only one who’s got two teams and he’s been very open and transparent: ‘If you see something you don’t like, let’s just chat about it.’” This suggests that Red Bull is aware of the scrutiny and is willing to keep the relationship within acceptable limits.
The Concorde Agreement discussions have even considered whether, over time, one of the paired teams should be divested to preserve competition. Brown expressed appreciation for the historical role of such partnerships but warned that expanding them would be detrimental to the sport’s future.
On the Mercedes side, team principal Toto Wolff clarified that the German manufacturer does not intend to turn Alpine into a junior team to its works outfit, despite supplying engines to Alpine from this season onward. Wolff said Mercedes is simply evaluating the merits of a minority investment, stating, “We are looking at it from different angles, and we haven’t come to any conclusions. We want to know whether it makes sense.” Adding to the list of potential investors, a consortium that includes former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has also shown interest in the Alpine shares, highlighting the broader appeal of a stake in a team that already benefits from a factory engine supply. In summary, Zak Brown’s renewed criticism underscores a fundamental tension in modern Formula 1: the balance between commercial collaboration and sporting fairness.
While partnerships and customer‑engine agreements are accepted, any deeper ownership links risk creating an uneven playing field, where resources and technical knowledge can be funneled to favored teams. Brown’s call for stricter independence aims to protect the integrity of the competition, ensuring that each of the sport’s eleven entries competes on merit rather than on the strength of hidden alliances.
As the 2026 regulatory overhaul approaches and the Concorde Agreement continues to evolve, the debate over team ownership structures is likely to remain a central theme in the sport’s governance. Formula 1 will return to action on May 1‑3 with the Miami Grand Prix, featuring the season’s second Sprint weekend, broadcast live on Sky Sports F1. Viewers can stream the coverage via NOW without a contract and cancel at any time.