McLaren chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his long‑standing opposition to the growing trend of multi‑team ownership and close technical ties within Formula 1, a stance that has gained renewed relevance after reports that Mercedes is evaluating a minority investment in Alpine. Brown has been an outspoken critic of what he labels "A‑B teams" – situations where one outfit enjoys a privileged relationship with another, either through shared ownership structures or deep technical collaborations.
He argues that such arrangements can erode the competitive balance that the sport relies on. Historically, the sport has seen several examples of these close ties.
Red Bull has owned two separate entries since 2005, initially purchasing the struggling Minardi team and rebranding it as Scuderia Toro Rosso (now AlphaTauri). Ferrari maintains a long‑standing technical partnership with Haas, providing the American team with power units and a degree of engineering support. Most recently, it emerged that Mercedes is among a group of potential investors interested in acquiring the 24 percent share of Alpine currently held by Otro Capital, a U.S.
investment firm. Alpine itself is majority‑owned by the Renault Group, with former F1 magnate Flavio Briatore serving as an executive advisor.
Briatore has remarked that in a typical corporate setting, a 75‑percent stakeholder makes the decisions while the remaining 25 percent is essentially a passive passenger – a description he feels mirrors the current situation in F1. Although such ownership structures are permissible under the sport’s regulations, Brown, whose McLaren cars run on Mercedes power units, insists that his concerns apply universally.
"Regardless of who is involved, I frown upon it," he said, emphasizing that any cross‑team relationship should be limited to the provision of customer engines and nothing more. In an interview with Sky Sports News, Brown elaborated on his viewpoint, stating, "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 several recent incidents that illustrate the potential for abuse. For example, he referenced a moment at the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix where Daniel Ricciardo, driving for Racing Bulls (the rebranded Toro Rosso), secured a point that indirectly aided 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," Brown noted. Brown also highlighted the fluid movement of intellectual property and personnel between affiliated teams. "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," he explained. This kind of rapid talent and technology sharing can give the affiliated team a hidden edge, undermining the cost‑cap framework that is intended to level the playing field. To illustrate the broader implications, Brown drew an analogy with football: "Can you imagine a Premier League game where two clubs are owned by the same group?
One could afford to lose and still stay up, while the other faces relegation. That's the risk we run in F1 if ownership becomes too intertwined." He argued that the only acceptable relationship should be that of a supplier and a customer – in this case, the engine manufacturer providing power units to an independent chassis team.
Brown added that he raised these concerns during the latest round of Concorde Agreement negotiations, where F1's commercial and regulatory stakeholders discuss the sport's future governance. "I think it's being managed now," he said, but warned that past incidents show the need for stricter safeguards. "We've seen incidents in the past and we need to do away with it, not increase it." While Brown expressed admiration for Red Bull's two‑team model – noting the company's impressive growth from the acquisition of Minardi to becoming a dominant force – he cautioned that replicating this model could be detrimental. "I'm glad to see, quite frankly, that the Racing Bulls and the Red Bull don't look like the same race car," he observed, indicating that the teams have diverged sufficiently in design and performance.
He also mentioned ongoing dialogue with Red Bull's team principal Laurent Mekies, describing Mekies as open and transparent about the challenges of running two 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.'" This, Brown suggested, shows that even Red Bull recognizes the delicate balance required to avoid overstepping regulatory boundaries.
The Concorde Agreement discussions have reportedly touched on whether, over time, one of the affiliated teams should be divested to preserve competition. Brown believes that, as long as the situation is closely monitored, the current arrangements can be tolerated, but any expansion 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 looking to turn Alpine into a junior team. "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." Wolff emphasized that any decision would be based on a strategic assessment rather than a desire to create a feeder team. Other interested parties include a consortium featuring former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner, indicating that the market for Alpine's minority stake is attracting a range of high‑profile investors.
The debate over multi‑team ownership is set against the backdrop of an increasingly commercialised sport, where revenue streams, sponsorship deals, and the cost‑cap system all interact in complex ways. As F1 prepares for the upcoming Miami Grand Prix – the season's second Sprint weekend – the conversation about maintaining a level playing field remains front and centre. Fans and stakeholders alike will be watching closely to see whether regulatory bodies tighten the rules or allow the current model to evolve.
In summary, Zak Brown's renewed criticism underscores a fundamental tension in modern Formula 1: balancing the financial realities that encourage partnerships and investments with the need to preserve the sport's competitive integrity. His call for stricter limits on cross‑team ties, restricting them to engine supply arrangements, reflects a broader desire to keep each of the eleven teams as independent as possible, ensuring that victories are earned on merit rather than through hidden alliances.