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 1, a stance that has gained fresh relevance following reports that Mercedes is contemplating the purchase of a minority share in Alpine. Brown has been an outspoken detractor of what he terms "A‑B teams" – situations where one outfit enjoys a deeper connection to another, either through shared ownership structures or extensive technical partnerships. He argues that such arrangements can erode the sport’s competitive balance and threaten its integrity.
The issue is not new. Red Bull has owned two separate entries since 2005, while Ferrari maintains a historic technical partnership with Haas. More recently, it emerged that Mercedes, which supplies power units to Alpine, is among the parties interested in acquiring the 24 percent stake currently held by Otro Capital, a U.S.
investment firm. Alpine’s majority shareholder is the Renault Group, and Flavio Briatore, who serves as the Enstone‑based team’s executive advisor, has remarked that in a typical corporate setting the majority holder (75 percent) makes the decisions while the minority (25 percent) is essentially a passenger – a description he believes mirrors the reality of such F1 arrangements.
Although the sport’s regulations allow for these kinds of shareholdings, Brown, whose own McLaren cars run on Mercedes engines, insists that his concerns apply universally. "Regardless of who is involved, I frown upon it," he said, adding that any cross‑team relationship should be limited to the supply of customer power units and nothing more. Speaking to Sky Sports News, Brown reiterated a sentiment he has held for a decade: "I don’t like co‑ownership, I don’t like A‑B teams. They pose a high risk of compromising the sporting integrity of the championship." He illustrated his point with recent on‑track examples.
At the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix, a fastest‑lap point earned by Daniel Ricciardo while driving for the Racing Bulls (Red Bull’s sister team) effectively helped Max Verstappen and Red Bull, depriving McLaren of a valuable point. "We have seen IP transfer from one team to another, staff moving overnight between teams – sometimes with contractual clauses that prevent a driver or engineer from joining a rival until 2028 – and these moves can give a hidden competitive edge," Brown explained.
"When a team can acquire talent or technology without paying the full cost‑cap price, it creates an unfair advantage." He drew a parallel with football to underline the danger: "Imagine two Premier League clubs owned by the same group. One could be relegated while the other stays afloat because the owner can subsidise losses.
That’s the scenario we risk in Formula 1." Brown’s solution is straightforward: keep the relationship between teams strictly limited to the provision of engines. "All eleven teams should be as independent as possible," he asserted, emphasizing that any deeper integration would undermine the sport’s level playing field. During the latest round of Concorde Agreement negotiations, Brown raised these concerns, noting that while the issue is currently being managed, past incidents demonstrate the need for stricter safeguards.
"We have seen incidents in the past and we need to do away with it, not increase it," he said. He also expressed a measured appreciation for Red Bull’s historic investment in the sport.
Red Bull’s acquisition of the struggling Minardi team in 2005, which gave them a second entry, was a bold move that helped shape modern F1. However, Brown cautions against replicating that model today.
"I’m glad to see that the Racing Bulls and Red Bull don’t look like the same race car," he noted, indicating that the two teams now operate with distinct identities. Brown mentioned ongoing conversations with Laurent Mekies, Red Bull’s team principal, who, according to Brown, has been transparent about the challenges of owning two teams.
"He’s the only one with two teams and he’s been very open: ‘If you see something you don’t like, let’s talk about it.’" This openness, Brown believes, shows that the sport’s stakeholders are aware of the problem and are reluctant to push the envelope further. The Concorde Agreement discussions have even touched on the possibility that, over time, one of the co‑owned teams might need to be divested to preserve competition.
Brown acknowledges the contributions of Red Bull to the sport but warns that expanding the multi‑team ownership model would be a mistake. Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff, when asked about the Alpine stake, clarified that the German outfit does not intend to turn Alpine into a junior team.
Instead, they are simply evaluating whether a minority investment makes commercial sense. "We are looking at it from different angles and haven’t come to any conclusions yet," Wolff said.
Other interested parties include a consortium featuring former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner, highlighting the broader appetite for investment in Alpine’s shareholding. As the F1 calendar heads into its May weekend with the Miami Grand Prix – the season’s second sprint event – the debate over team independence versus strategic partnerships remains a hot topic among fans, teams, and regulators alike. The sport’s governing bodies will need to balance the financial realities that drive investment with the fundamental principle of fair competition, ensuring that no team gains an undue advantage simply by virtue of shared ownership or behind‑the‑scenes alliances.