McLaren’s chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his long‑standing opposition to the practice of multi‑team ownership and close‑knit alliances within Formula 1, a stance that has gained renewed relevance following reports that Mercedes is contemplating the purchase of a minority share in Alpine. Brown has consistently criticized what he labels "A‑B teams" – situations where one racing outfit enjoys a deeper connection to another, either through shared ownership structures or technical partnerships that go beyond the usual customer‑supplier relationship. The issue is not new to the sport.
Since 2005 Red Bull has owned two separate teams, while Ferrari maintains a historic technical partnership with Haas. More recently, it emerged that Mercedes is among several parties interested in acquiring the 24 percent stake in Alpine currently held by Otro Capital, a U.S.-based investment firm.
Alpine’s majority shareholder is the Renault Group, and its executive advisor, Flavio Briatore, has remarked that in a typical corporate scenario the majority holder (75 percent) makes the decisions while the minority partner (25 percent) is essentially a passenger. This comment underscores the power dynamics at play when a large automotive manufacturer like Mercedes considers a foothold in a rival team.
Although such arrangements are permissible under the sport’s regulations, Brown – whose McLaren cars are powered by Mercedes engines – insists that his objection applies universally, regardless of which parties are involved. "I frown upon it," he said, emphasizing that cross‑team relationships should be limited strictly to the provision of power units and nothing more. Speaking to Sky Sports News, Brown explained his position: "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 concrete examples to illustrate his concerns.
At the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix, for instance, Daniel Ricciardo, driving for the Racing Bulls (Red Bull’s junior outfit), took a point away from McLaren, indirectly benefiting Max Verstappen and Red Bull. "We have seen fastest laps from one team, Daniel Ricciardo [when driving for Racing Bulls] take a point away from McLaren to help Max [Verstappen] and Red Bull," he noted.
Brown also highlighted the ease with which intellectual property and personnel can move between affiliated teams, creating an uneven playing field. "We've seen IP transfer from one team to another. We've seen staff move from one team to another overnight where I have to wait until 2028. So 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," he explained.
This fluidity, he argues, undermines the cost‑cap system designed to keep competition fair. To put the issue into perspective, Brown offered an analogy with football: "Can you imagine a Premier League game where two clubs are owned by the same group? One’s going to get relegated if they lose. The other can afford to lose.
That's the risk we run in F1." He believes that the only acceptable link between teams should be the supply of engines, and that each of the eleven entries should strive for maximum independence. Brown indicated that he raised these concerns during the most recent round of Concorde Agreement negotiations, which involve all of Formula 1’s key stakeholders. "I think it's being managed now," he said, but warned that past incidents demonstrate the need for stricter safeguards: "We've seen incidents in the past and we need to do away with it, not increase it." While he expressed admiration for Red Bull’s two‑decade‑long investment in the sport – noting that the company took over the struggling Minardi team in 2005 to create a second outfit – Brown cautioned against replicating that model. "I'm glad to see, quite frankly, that the Racing Bulls and the Red Bull don't look like the same race car," he remarked, emphasizing the importance of visual and technical distinction between sister teams.
Brown also referenced conversations with Red Bull team principal Laurent Mekies, acknowledging that Red Bull has been open about the challenges of owning multiple teams. "I'm not picking on him in particular, but he's the only one who's got two teams and he's been very open and transparent: 'if you see something that you don't like, let's just chat about it.' So I think they recognise it and don't want to push the envelope," Brown said. The Concorde Agreement discussions have reportedly touched on whether one of the affiliated teams should eventually be divested to preserve competition. Brown believes that, provided the situation is closely monitored, the sport can tolerate some level of partnership, but expanding the model would be a mistake.
"There were discussions in the Concorde Agreement about should over time one of the teams be divested, but also have a huge appreciation for what they've done for the sport and how that was done a long time ago. So I think as long as it's managed and watched... but certainly adding to it, I think, 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 outfit is not seeking to turn Alpine into a junior team to its works outfit. Instead, Wolff said Mercedes is simply evaluating the merits of a minority stake and has not reached a decision: "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 another layer to the ownership intrigue, a consortium that includes former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has also been reported as an interested party in the Alpine shares.
The debate over multi‑team ownership is likely to intensify as the 2024 season progresses, with the next race weekend – the Miami Grand Prix – set to feature the sport’s second Sprint event. Fans can follow the action live on Sky Sports F1, with streaming options available through NOW without a long‑term contract. The outcome of these ownership discussions could shape the competitive landscape of Formula 1 for years to come.