McLaren chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his long‑standing objections to the growing trend of multi‑team ownership and close technical alliances within Formula 1, a debate that has been reignited by recent reports that Mercedes may be interested in acquiring a minority share of the Alpine team. Brown has been an outspoken opponent of what he describes as "A‑B teams" – situations where one racing outfit enjoys a deeper, often financially intertwined relationship with another, either through direct ownership stakes or through extensive technical partnerships. He argues that such arrangements threaten the competitive integrity of the sport by blurring the lines between independent competitors.
Historically, the sport has seen several examples that Brown points to as precedents. Red Bull, for instance, has owned two separate entries since 2005, initially taking over the struggling Minardi operation and rebranding it as Scuderia Toro Rosso (now known as AlphaTauri). Ferrari maintains a long‑standing technical partnership with the American team Haas, providing engines and a degree of technical support that goes beyond a simple customer‑supplier relationship. Most recently, media reports revealed that Mercedes is among a group of potential investors looking at the 24 percent share of Alpine currently held by the U.S.
investment firm Otro Capital. The majority ownership of Alpine remains with the Renault Group, while Flavio Briatore, who serves as an executive advisor to the Enstone‑based squad, has downplayed the significance of minority stakes, suggesting that a 75‑percent majority essentially runs the show while the remaining 25 percent is merely a passenger. Even though the sport’s regulations technically allow such ownership structures, Brown, whose McLaren cars are powered by Mercedes engines, insists that his concerns apply universally.
"I frown upon any form of co‑ownership, regardless of who is involved," he told Sky Sports News. "Cross‑team ties should be limited to the supply of power units and nothing more." Brown recounted several incidents that illustrate his point. He cited a moment at the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix when Daniel Ricciardo, driving for the Racing Bulls (Red Bull’s sister team), took a point away from McLaren, indirectly aiding Max Verstappen and Red Bull in the championship battle. He also mentioned the transfer of intellectual property and staff between teams, noting that such moves can provide a cost‑cap advantage because they circumvent the need for direct financial transactions.
"We have seen IP move from one team to another and staff switching overnight, giving the receiving team a sporting edge without having to write a cheque," Brown explained. To make the issue more relatable, Brown offered an analogy with football: "Imagine two Premier League clubs owned by the same consortium. If one team gets relegated, the other can simply absorb the loss because it has deeper pockets. That’s the risk we face in F1 if ownership becomes consolidated." He reiterated that the only acceptable level of collaboration, in his view, is the traditional customer‑supplier model for engines, and that each of the eleven entries should strive to be as independent as possible.
During the latest round of Concorde Agreement negotiations, Brown raised these concerns with the sport’s governing bodies. He believes progress is being made, stating, "I think it’s being managed now, but we’ve seen incidents in the past and we need to eliminate them, not expand them." While he acknowledges the substantial contributions Red Bull has made to Formula 1 over the past two decades, he cautions against replicating their ownership model.
"I’m glad the Racing Bulls and Red Bull no longer look like the same car," he said, highlighting the importance of visual and technical distinction between sister teams. Brown also referenced conversations with Laurent Mekies, Red Bull’s team principal, noting that Mekies has been transparent about the challenges of running two teams and is open to dialogue when issues arise. This, Brown believes, shows that Red Bull recognizes the potential pitfalls and is not eager to push the envelope further.
The Concorde Agreement discussions have even touched on the possibility that, over time, one of the paired teams might need to be divested to preserve competition. Brown expressed appreciation for the historical achievements of multi‑team ownership but warned that any expansion of such structures would be detrimental to the sport’s future. On the Mercedes side, team principal Toto Wolff clarified that the German manufacturer is not seeking to turn Alpine into a junior team to its works outfit.
Instead, Mercedes is merely evaluating whether a minority investment makes commercial sense. "We are looking at it from different angles and haven’t reached any conclusions yet," Wolff said. He added that a consortium that includes former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has also shown interest in the Alpine shareholding.
As the debate continues, the sport’s calendar moves forward with the Miami Grand Prix scheduled for May 1‑3, which will also host the second Sprint weekend of the season. Fans can follow the action live on Sky Sports F1 or stream via NOW, with flexible subscription options. In summary, Zak Brown’s renewed criticism underscores a broader concern within Formula 1: the balance between financial collaboration and sporting fairness. While ownership stakes and technical partnerships are legal and can bring stability, they also risk creating a hierarchy of teams that undermines the principle of equal competition.
The ongoing discussions among teams, investors, and the FIA will determine how the sport navigates these complex relationships moving forward.