McLaren chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his long‑standing opposition to the practice of multi‑team ownership and close technical alliances within Formula One, a stance he reiterated after reports emerged that Mercedes is evaluating a minority investment in Alpine. Brown has consistently warned against what he labels "A‑B team" structures, where one outfit enjoys a privileged relationship with another—whether through shared ownership, technical cooperation, or a combination of both—because he believes such arrangements can erode the sport's competitive integrity. The issue of intertwined teams is not new to the sport.
Red Bull has owned two separate entries since 2005, initially acquiring the struggling Minardi team and rebranding it as Scuderia Toro Rosso (now known as AlphaTauri). Ferrari maintains a long‑standing technical partnership with the American‑based Haas team, supplying them with power units and certain chassis components.
Most recently, Mercedes was reported to be among a group of potential investors interested in acquiring the 24‑percent share of Alpine that is currently held by Otro Capital, a U.S. investment firm. Alpine’s majority shareholder remains the Renault Group, while former Formula One magnate Flavio Briatore, who serves as an executive advisor to the Enstone‑based outfit, has remarked that in a typical corporate structure the majority owner (75 %) makes the decisions while the minority partner (25 %) is essentially a passenger. Although the FIA’s regulations do not outright forbid such ownership configurations, Brown—whose McLaren cars run on Mercedes power units—stated that his concerns apply universally, regardless of which parties are involved.
"I frown upon any form of cross‑team ownership," he told Sky Sports News, emphasizing that the only acceptable relationship between teams should be the supply of customer power units. Brown’s criticism is rooted in several concrete examples he cited. He recalled the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix, where a driver for the Racing Bulls (Red Bull’s junior team) took a point away from McLaren, indirectly benefiting Max Verstappen and Red Bull’s lead team.
He also highlighted the transfer of intellectual property and staff between teams, noting that personnel can move overnight, giving the receiving team a competitive edge without the need to spend under the sport’s cost‑cap restrictions. "They get a sporting advantage and a cost‑cap advantage at the same time," Brown explained. To illustrate the potential danger, Brown drew an analogy with football: "Imagine a Premier League where two clubs are owned by the same consortium.
If one club is relegated, the other can survive because the owners can shift resources. That’s the risk we face in Formula 1." He argued that the sport should limit relationships to the provision of engines and nothing more, insisting that all eleven entries should operate as independently as possible. Brown indicated that he raised these concerns during the most recent Concorde Agreement negotiations, a set of contracts that define the commercial and regulatory framework for Formula 1. He believes the issue is being addressed, but warned that past incidents demonstrate the need for stricter safeguards to prevent any escalation of multi‑team control.
While acknowledging Red Bull’s pioneering role in developing a successful two‑team model over two decades, Brown stressed that the sport should not replicate that blueprint. He praised the fact that the Racing Bulls and the senior Red Bull team now appear distinct in terms of car design, suggesting that Red Bull has taken steps to keep the two operations separate. Brown also mentioned his conversations with Red Bull team principal Laurent Mekies, noting that Mekies has been transparent about the challenges of managing two teams and is open to dialogue about any perceived conflicts.
The discussion also touched on potential future divestments. During the Concorde Agreement talks, there were suggestions that one of the dual‑owned teams might eventually need to be sold to preserve competitive balance. Brown expressed appreciation for the contributions of multi‑team owners but cautioned that expanding such arrangements would be detrimental to the sport’s health.
Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff, when asked about the Alpine stake, clarified that the German manufacturer is not seeking to turn Alpine into a junior squad for its works team. Instead, Wolff said Mercedes is simply evaluating whether a minority share makes commercial sense, stating, "We are looking at it from different angles and have not reached any conclusions yet." In addition to Mercedes, a consortium that includes former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has been reported as another interested party in Alpine’s minority share, underscoring the growing appetite among established teams and investors to gain a foothold in additional entries. The broader context of these ownership debates is set against the backdrop of the upcoming Miami Grand Prix, scheduled for May 1‑3, which will feature the second Sprint weekend of the season.
Fans can watch the action live on Sky Sports F1 or stream via NOW, with flexible subscription options. In summary, Zak Brown’s renewed critique of multi‑team ownership highlights a fundamental tension in Formula 1: balancing commercial interests and investment opportunities with the need to maintain a level playing field. His call for stricter limits—restricting relationships to engine supply and ensuring each team remains as independent as possible—reflects a desire to protect the sport’s sporting integrity as it navigates an era of increasing financial complexity and strategic partnerships.