McLaren’s chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his longstanding 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 may be interested in acquiring a minority share of the Alpine squad. Brown has been an outspoken opponent of what he labels “A‑B teams” – a situation where one racing outfit enjoys a privileged relationship with another, either through shared ownership structures or through deep technical collaborations that go beyond the usual customer‑supplier arrangement.
He argues that such configurations can undermine the competitive balance of the sport and create conflicts of interest that are difficult to police. The issue is not new.
Red Bull has owned two Formula 1 entries since 2005, initially taking over the struggling Minardi team and re‑branding it as Scuderia AlphaTauri. Ferrari, meanwhile, maintains a long‑standing technical partnership with the American‑based Haas team, providing them with power units and engineering support. Most recently, news emerged that Mercedes is among a group of potential investors looking at the 24 percent stake in Alpine currently held by the U.S.
investment firm Otro Capital. The majority share of Alpine remains with the Renault Group, while former F1 magnate Flavio Briatore, who serves as an executive adviser to the Enstone‑based outfit, has remarked that in a typical corporate structure the majority holder (75 percent) makes the decisions while the minority partner (25 percent) is essentially a passenger. Although the FIA’s regulations permit such ownership arrangements, Brown – whose McLaren cars are powered by Mercedes engines – insists that his stance applies universally, regardless of which manufacturers or teams are involved. "I frown upon it," he said, emphasizing that cross‑team ties should be limited to the supply of power units and nothing more.
Speaking to Sky Sports News, Brown outlined his concerns 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 cited specific examples that illustrate the potential for abuse. At the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix, Daniel Ricciardo, driving for the Racing Bulls (formerly AlphaTauri), took a point away from McLaren, indirectly helping Max Verstappen and Red Bull in the championship battle.
"We've seen fastest laps from one team, then that same driver or technology benefits a rival," Brown explained. "We have also seen intellectual property transferred from one outfit to another, and staff moving overnight between teams – sometimes with contractual clauses that prevent them from joining a rival until 2028.
Those moves can give a sporting advantage without any direct financial outlay, effectively creating a cost‑cap loophole." Brown likened the situation to a hypothetical scenario in football: "Imagine two Premier League clubs owned by the same consortium. If one club gets relegated, the other can survive because the owners can subsidise it.
That’s the danger we face in F1." His proposed solution is straightforward: limit the relationship between teams to the supply of power units and ensure that each of the eleven entries operates as independently as possible. "Engine supply should be as far as it goes," he asserted.
"All eleven teams should be absolutely independent." The McLaren boss also noted that he raised these concerns during the most recent Concorde Agreement negotiations, a set of contracts that define the commercial and regulatory framework of the sport. "I think it's being managed now," Brown said, "but we've seen incidents in the past and we need to eliminate them, not expand them." While Brown acknowledges the significant contributions Red Bull has made to Formula 1 over the past two decades – including the transformation of a struggling Minardi operation into a competitive second team – he believes that the Red Bull model should not become a template for the future. "I'm glad to see that the Racing Bulls and Red Bull don't look like the same race car," he added, indicating that the teams have diverged in design and development. He also referenced ongoing conversations with Red Bull team principal Laurent Mekies, noting that Mekies has been open about the challenges of managing a dual‑team operation.
"He's the only one with two teams and he's been very transparent: '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. During the Concorde Agreement talks, there were discussions about whether one of the co‑owned teams should eventually be divested to preserve competition. Brown expressed appreciation for what Red Bull achieved historically, but warned that expanding the model would be a mistake for the sport.
Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff, when asked about the Alpine stake, clarified that the German manufacturer is not looking to turn Alpine into a junior team for its works outfit. Instead, Mercedes is simply evaluating the financial and strategic merits of a minority investment. "We are looking at it from different angles, and we haven't come to any conclusions," Wolff said.
"We want to know whether it makes sense." A separate consortium that includes former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has also been reported as an interested party in the Alpine share, adding another layer of complexity to the ownership landscape. As the sport heads into the Miami Grand Prix weekend – the second sprint event of the season – the debate over multi‑team ownership remains a hot topic among fans, teams, and regulators alike. Brown’s remarks underscore a broader concern that the sport must strike a balance between commercial partnerships and preserving a level playing field, ensuring that no team gains an unfair advantage through hidden alliances or shared resources beyond the agreed‑upon engine supply contracts.