McLaren’s chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his long‑standing opposition to multi‑ownership structures and close affiliations between Formula 1 teams, a stance that has resurfaced now that Mercedes has signaled interest in acquiring a minority share of Alpine. Brown has been an outspoken critic of what he terms "A‑B teams" – situations where one outfit enjoys a deeper connection to another, either through shared ownership or technical partnerships, which he believes can undermine the sport’s competitive balance.
The issue of intertwined teams is not new to F1. Red Bull has owned two separate entries since 2005, while Ferrari maintains a historic technical partnership with Haas.
Most recently, reports emerged that Mercedes is among several parties considering the purchase of the 24 percent stake in Alpine currently held by the U.S. investment firm Otro Capital.
Alpine’s majority owner is the Renault Group, and its executive advisor, Flavio Briatore, has remarked that in a typical corporate structure the majority shareholder (around 75 percent) makes the key decisions, leaving the minority holder as a passive participant. Although such arrangements are permitted under the sport’s regulations, Brown—whose McLaren cars run on Mercedes power units—stressed that his concerns apply universally, regardless of which teams are involved.
He told Sky Sports News that he has been warning against co‑ownership for a decade, arguing that it poses a "high risk of compromising the sporting integrity of the sport." Brown believes that the only acceptable relationship between teams should be the supply of customer power units, and nothing beyond that. He illustrated his point with several recent examples.
At the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix, a fastest‑lap point earned by Daniel Ricciardo while driving for Racing Bulls effectively took a point away from McLaren, benefitting Max Verstappen and Red Bull. Brown also highlighted the transfer of intellectual property and staff between teams, noting that personnel can move overnight, giving the receiving team a performance advantage without a corresponding cost under the budget cap. "They don’t have to write a cheque, so it’s a cost‑cap advantage," he said.
During a McLaren media briefing, Brown drew a parallel with football, asking listeners to imagine two Premier League clubs owned by the same group. "One’s going to get relegated if they lose, the other can afford to lose," he argued, emphasizing that such a scenario would be unacceptable in any sport. He reiterated that the provision of engines should be the furthest extent of any cross‑team relationship and that all eleven F1 entries should strive for maximum independence.
Brown indicated that he raised these concerns during the latest round of Concorde Agreement negotiations, which involve all F1 stakeholders. He believes the issue is being addressed but warned that past incidents demonstrate the need to eliminate, not expand, such affiliations. While he expressed "huge appreciation" for Red Bull’s two‑decade investment in the sport—recognising the historic takeover of the struggling Minardi team in 2005—he cautioned against replicating that model. "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, noting that Red Bull’s team principal Laurent Mekies has been open to dialogue about potential conflicts.
Brown also referenced discussions within the Concorde Agreement about the possible divestiture of one of the teams in a multi‑ownership setup, underscoring the importance of monitoring and managing these relationships. He concluded that expanding the practice would be a mistake for the sport’s future. Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff, when asked about the Alpine investment, clarified that the German marque does not intend to turn Alpine into a junior team to its works outfit.
Instead, Wolff said Mercedes is simply evaluating whether a minority stake makes strategic sense, noting that a consortium that includes former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has also shown interest in the Alpine shares. The broader debate touches on the delicate balance between commercial interests and sporting fairness. As Formula 1 continues to grow its global audience—highlighted by upcoming events such as the Miami Grand Prix, the second Sprint weekend of the season, and a host of streaming options—fans and teams alike will be watching how regulators handle ownership structures. The sport’s governing bodies must ensure that the competition remains as level as possible, preventing any single entity from gaining undue influence over multiple entries.
In summary, Zak Brown’s renewed criticism serves as a reminder that while multi‑team ownership and technical alliances are legal, they raise legitimate concerns about competitive equity. His call for stricter limits—essentially confining relationships to engine supply—aims to preserve the integrity of Formula 1 as it evolves into a more commercially driven era. The ongoing discussions among the FIA, team principals, and investors will determine whether the sport can maintain a healthy separation between teams while still fostering the partnerships that drive technological advancement.