McLaren chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his long‑standing objections to the growing trend of multi‑team ownership and tightly knit partnerships 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 outfit. Brown has been an outspoken critic of what he labels "A‑B teams" – a situation where one racing organization enjoys a privileged connection to another, either through direct ownership stakes, shared technical resources, or other forms of collaboration that go beyond the usual customer‑supplier relationship. He argues that such arrangements can erode the competitive balance of the sport and create conflicts of interest that are hard to police. The issue is not new.
Red Bull has owned two separate teams since 2005, first by purchasing the then‑struggling Minardi and re‑branding it as Scuderia Toro Rosso (now AlphaTauri). Ferrari maintains a long‑standing technical partnership with the American‑based Haas team, providing them with power units and engineering support.
Most recently, reports emerged that Mercedes is among several parties considering a purchase of the 24 percent stake in Alpine currently held by Otro Capital, a U.S. investment firm. Alpine itself is majority‑owned by the Renault Group, and its executive advisor, Flavio Briatore, has described the ownership structure in blunt terms: "Normally, in a company, 75 percent decides and the remaining 25 percent is just a passenger.
That is the reality here." While all of these arrangements are technically permissible under the current FIA regulations, Brown, whose own McLaren cars run on Mercedes power units, says his stance applies 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 illustrated his concerns with concrete examples from recent races.
At the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix, Brown pointed out that a fastest lap set by Daniel Ricciardo while driving for Racing Bulls (the re‑branded Toro Rosso) effectively helped Max Verstappen and Red Bull by taking a point away from McLaren. "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 because of the personnel freeze. 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 said. Brown likened the situation to football, asking listeners to imagine a Premier League season in which two clubs are owned by the same consortium. "One's going to get relegated if they lose.
The other can afford to lose. That's the risk we run," he warned. "So I think having engine power units as suppliers is as far as it should go.
And then, in my view, all eleven teams should be as independent as possible." He added that he raised these concerns during the most recent round of Concorde Agreement negotiations, a set of contracts that define the commercial and regulatory framework of Formula 1. "I think it's being managed now, but we've seen incidents in the past and we need to do away with it, not increase it," Brown said.
Despite his criticism, Brown expressed admiration for Red Bull's achievements over the past two decades. He acknowledged the historical context of Red Bull's entry into the sport, noting that the Austrian energy‑drink company took over the struggling Minardi team in 2005 to create a second outfit under its umbrella. However, he believes that model should not be replicated today.
"I'm glad to see, quite frankly, that the Racing Bulls and Red Bull don't look like the same race car," he remarked, emphasizing that the two teams now appear distinct in design and performance. Brown also mentioned his conversations with Laurent Mekies, Red Bull's team principal, saying that Mekies has been transparent about the challenges of owning two teams. "I'm not picking on him in particular, but he's the only one who has two teams and he's been very open and transparent: 'If you see something 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 explained. The Concorde Agreement discussions have even touched on the possibility that, over time, one of the dual‑owned teams might need to be divested to preserve competition.
Brown reiterated his appreciation for the contributions Red Bull has made to the sport, but warned that expanding the multi‑team ownership model would be a mistake. "As long as it's managed and watched, it's fine, but certainly adding to it 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 manufacturer does not intend to turn Alpine into a junior squad for its works team.
Instead, Wolff said Mercedes is simply evaluating the financial and strategic merits of a minority stake. "We are looking at it from different angles, and we haven't come to any conclusions. We want to know whether it makes sense," he said.
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. This further underscores the growing appetite among established F1 figures to diversify their portfolios within the sport.
Brown's comments come at a time when Formula 1 is gearing up for the Miami Grand Prix, the second sprint weekend of the season, scheduled for May 1‑3. The race will be broadcast live on Sky Sports F1, with streaming options available via NOW without a long‑term contract. In summary, Zak Brown's renewed criticism highlights a fundamental tension in modern Formula 1: the balance between commercial collaboration and the preservation of a level playing field.
While partnerships such as engine supply deals are generally accepted, any deeper integration—whether through shared ownership, technology transfer, or staff movement—raises questions about fairness and the sport's long‑term health. As the Concorde Agreement negotiations continue and potential investors like Mercedes and Horner’s consortium weigh their options, the F1 community will be watching closely to see whether regulatory safeguards can keep the competition truly independent, or whether the sport will increasingly resemble a collection of affiliated clubs under a handful of powerful owners.