McLaren's chief executive, Zak Brown, has once again voiced his long‑standing objections to the growing trend of multi‑ownership and close‑knit partnerships between Formula 1 teams, a debate that has been reignited by Mercedes' recent expression of interest in acquiring a minority share of Alpine. Brown has been an outspoken opponent of what he terms "A‑B teams" – situations where one outfit enjoys a privileged relationship with another, either through shared ownership, a technical alliance, or a combination of both.
He argues that such arrangements risk undermining the competitive balance that is central to the sport's appeal. The issue is not new.
Red Bull has owned two separate entries since 2005, having taken over the then‑struggling Minardi team and rebranding it as Scuderia AlphaTauri. Ferrari maintains a long‑standing technical partnership with Haas, supplying engines and other components. Most recently, reports emerged that Mercedes is among several parties considering the purchase of the 24 percent share in Alpine currently held by the U.S. investment firm Otro Capital.
The majority stake in Alpine remains with the Renault Group, while former F1 magnate Flavio Briatore, who serves as Alpine's executive adviser, has remarked that in a typical corporate structure the majority owner (75 percent) makes the decisions while the minority partner (25 percent) is essentially a passenger. Although the FIA’s regulations do not forbid such ownership structures, Brown, whose McLaren cars run on Mercedes power units, maintains that his concerns apply universally: "Regardless of who is involved, I frown upon it," he told Sky Sports News. He believes that the only acceptable link between two teams should be the supply of customer engines, and nothing beyond that.
"I've been saying for ten years I don't like co‑ownership, I don't like A‑B teams," Brown said. "I think it runs a high risk of compromising the sporting integrity of the sport." He cited several recent examples that illustrate the potential for unfair advantage. At the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix, for instance, Daniel Ricciardo, driving for the Racing Bulls (the rebranded AlphaTauri), secured a point that helped Max Verstappen and Red Bull maintain their lead, an outcome Brown suggested was facilitated by the shared resources between the two Red Bull‑owned teams. He also highlighted the ease with which intellectual property and personnel can move between affiliated teams.
"We've seen IP transfer from one team to another. We've seen staff move overnight, and the cost‑cap rules mean they can gain a sporting advantage without having to write a cheque," Brown explained.
"That creates a hidden subsidy that other independent teams cannot match." To make the issue more relatable, Brown drew a parallel with football: "Imagine a Premier League season where two clubs are owned by the same group. One club could afford to lose and still survive, while the other faces relegation. That's the kind of imbalance we risk in F1 if ownership becomes too intertwined." He stressed that the ideal scenario is for all eleven teams to operate as independently as possible, with the only permissible connection being the supply of power units.
"Engine supply should be as far as it goes," he said. "Beyond that, we need a firewall." Brown told reporters at a McLaren media day that he had raised these concerns during the most recent Concorde Agreement negotiations, which involve all of the sport's key stakeholders. "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," he said. While he acknowledges Red Bull's significant contributions to Formula 1 over the past two decades, Brown is wary of allowing the model of owning multiple teams to become a template for others.
"I'm glad to see that the Racing Bulls and Red Bull don't look like the same race car," he added, indicating that visual and technical differentiation is a step in the right direction. Brown also mentioned his conversations with Laurent Mekies, Red Bull's team principal, noting that Mekies has been transparent about the challenges of dual ownership.
"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, Brown believes, shows that Red Bull is aware of the potential pitfalls and is cautious about pushing 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 expressed appreciation for the historical achievements of Red Bull while insisting that any expansion of the multi‑team model would be a mistake for the sport. 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 team to its works outfit.
Instead, Wolff said Mercedes is 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," 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. The debate over team alliances is set to continue as the 2024 season progresses, with the next race weekend – the Miami Grand Prix – scheduled for May 1‑3, featuring the second Sprint event of the year. Fans can follow the action live on Sky Sports F1 or stream via NOW, with the flexibility to cancel at any time. In summary, Zak Brown's renewed criticism underscores a broader concern within Formula 1: that the sport must guard against any form of ownership concentration that could erode its competitive fairness.
While regulations currently permit multi‑team stakes, the call for stricter limits – restricting relationships to engine supply only – reflects a desire to keep the grid as level‑playing as possible for the benefit of teams, drivers, and spectators alike.