McLaren’s chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his longstanding opposition to the practice of multi‑team ownership and close affiliations between Formula 1 outfits, a stance that has resurfaced as Mercedes evaluates a possible minority investment in Alpine. Brown has been a vocal detractor of what he terms "A‑B teams" – arrangements where one organization, either through direct ownership or a technical partnership, enjoys a deeper, potentially unfair link with another team. The issue is not new to the sport. Red Bull has owned two separate entries since 2005, while Ferrari maintains a long‑standing technical partnership with Haas.
More recently, reports emerged that Mercedes is among several parties interested in acquiring the 24 percent share of Alpine currently held by Otro Capital, a U.S. investment firm. Alpine’s majority shareholder is the Renault Group, and its executive advisor, Flavio Briatore, has remarked that in a typical corporate structure the majority holder (75 percent) makes the decisions while the minority (25 percent) is essentially a passenger – a description he feels mirrors the current situation.
Although such ownership structures are allowed under the sport’s regulations, Brown – whose McLaren cars run on Mercedes power units – insists his concerns apply universally. He told Sky Sports News that he "frowns upon" any form of cross‑team entanglement that goes beyond the simple supply of engines. "I’ve been saying for ten years I don’t like co‑ownership, I don’t like A‑B teams," he said.
"It runs a high risk of compromising the sporting integrity of the sport." Brown illustrated his point with several recent examples. He cited the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix, where Daniel Ricciardo, driving for the Racing Bulls (formerly AlphaTauri), secured a point that indirectly helped Max Verstappen and Red Bull.
He also mentioned the transfer of intellectual property and staff between teams, noting that such moves can give a competitive edge without the usual cost‑cap penalties because the receiving team does not have to pay a transfer fee. "We have 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," Brown explained. Drawing a parallel with football, Brown asked reporters to imagine a Premier League scenario in which two clubs are owned by the same conglomerate.
"One’s going to get relegated if they lose. The other can afford to lose," he said, highlighting the inherent imbalance such arrangements could create in Formula 1. He argued that the only acceptable relationship should be the supply of power units, and that each of the eleven teams should strive for maximum independence.
Brown also referenced the ongoing Concorde Agreement negotiations, stating that he raised his concerns during the latest round of talks. While he believes the issue is being managed, he warned that past incidents show the need to eliminate, rather than expand, such affiliations. "We’ve seen incidents in the past and we need to do away with it, not increase it," he asserted. Despite his criticism, Brown expressed admiration for Red Bull’s two‑team model, acknowledging the historic context in which Red Bull took over the struggling Minardi team in 2005 to create a second entry.
He clarified that he does not wish to see the model replicated without safeguards. "I’m glad to see, quite frankly, that the Racing Bulls and the Red Bull don’t look like the same race car," he said, emphasizing that the two teams operate with distinct technical identities. Brown noted that he has spoken directly with Laurent Mekies, Red Bull’s team principal, about the topic.
"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: ‘hey, 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 added. He recalled that the Concorde Agreement discussions even touched on whether one of the two teams should eventually be divested, underscoring the sport’s awareness of the potential conflict. On the Mercedes side, team principal Toto Wolff clarified that the German manufacturer is not looking to turn Alpine into a junior team to its works outfit, even though Mercedes supplies Alpine’s engines from this season onward.
Wolff said the group is simply assessing the merits of a minority stake, weighing the strategic benefits against any regulatory or sporting concerns. "We are looking at it from different angles, and we haven’t come to any conclusions," Wolff told reporters. "We want to know whether it makes sense." Adding another layer to the ownership saga, a consortium that includes former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has also shown interest in the Alpine shareholding, indicating that multiple parties see value in a foothold within the Alpine operation. The debate over multi‑team ownership is likely to intensify as the 2026 regulatory changes approach, bringing new power‑unit rules and a revamped cost cap.
Stakeholders will need to balance the commercial benefits of shared resources against the principle of a level playing field. For fans, the upcoming Miami Grand Prix – the second sprint weekend of the season – will provide another showcase of how these dynamics play out on the track.
The race will be broadcast live on Sky Sports F1, with streaming options available via NOW without a long‑term contract.