McLaren chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his long‑standing objections to the practice of multi‑team ownership and close technical alliances within Formula 1, a debate that has resurfaced following reports that Mercedes is evaluating a minority investment in Alpine. Brown, who has been an outspoken opponent of what he describes as "A‑B teams" – arrangements where one outfit enjoys a privileged relationship with another through shared ownership or deep technical cooperation – used recent developments as a catalyst to reiterate his concerns.
Since the early 2000s, Formula 1 has seen several examples of such partnerships. Red Bull, for instance, has owned two separate racing entities since 2005, initially acquiring the struggling Minardi team and rebranding it as Scuderia Toro Rosso before it later became AlphaTauri. Ferrari maintains a longstanding technical partnership with Haas, providing the American team with power units, aerodynamic data and engineering support. Most recently, it emerged that Mercedes is among a group of potential investors interested in purchasing the 24 percent share of Alpine currently held by the U.S.
investment firm Otro Capital. Alpine’s majority stake remains with the Renault Group, and executive advisor Flavio Briatore has commented that in a typical corporate structure the majority shareholder (75 percent) makes the decisions while the minority partner (25 percent) is essentially a passenger. While such structures are permitted under the sport’s regulations, Brown, whose McLaren cars are powered by Mercedes engines, argued that his position applies universally, regardless of which parties are involved. He told Sky Sports News, "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." Brown’s argument rests on the premise that cross‑team ties can create an uneven playing field, allowing one team to benefit from resources, data, or personnel that should be exclusive to its own operation. He illustrated his point with several recent incidents. At the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix, Brown noted that Daniel Ricciardo, driving for Racing Bulls (the rebranded Scuderia AlphaTauri), secured a point that indirectly helped Max Verstappen and Red Bull by taking it away from McLaren. He also highlighted the transfer of intellectual property and staff between teams, pointing out that personnel moves can happen overnight, effectively bypassing the sport’s cost‑cap regulations because the receiving team gains expertise without having to spend the cap‑allowed budget.
"They’re not going to have to write a cheque, so it’s a cost‑cap advantage," Brown said. To make his argument more relatable, Brown compared the situation to football. "Can you imagine a Premier League game where two clubs are owned by the same group? One could survive relegation while the other could afford to lose.
That’s the risk we face in F1," he explained at a McLaren media event. He argued that the only acceptable level of collaboration should be the supply of power units, and that all eleven teams should strive for maximum independence. Brown also referenced the ongoing Concorde Agreement negotiations, indicating that he raised his concerns during the latest round of talks among F1’s stakeholders. He believes the issue is being monitored, but warned that past incidents demonstrate the need for stricter enforcement to prevent any escalation of multi‑team dominance.
"We’ve seen incidents in the past and we need to do away with it, not increase it," he said. Despite his criticism, Brown expressed admiration for Red Bull’s achievements over two decades, acknowledging that the team’s early investment in a second outfit helped them grow into a dominant force.
However, he cautioned against using that model as a template for the future. "I’m glad to see, quite frankly, that the Racing Bulls and the Red Bull don’t look like the same race car," he added, noting that Red Bull has been transparent about the challenges of managing two teams and has engaged in dialogue with rivals when concerns arise.
The discussion also touched on the broader context of the sport’s governance. Brown mentioned that the Concorde Agreement included talks about whether one of the teams should eventually be divested to preserve competitive balance. He reiterated his appreciation for the contributions of multi‑team owners but emphasized that any expansion of such structures would be detrimental.
"As long as it’s managed and watched… adding to it would be a mistake for the sport," he concluded. Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff, when asked about the potential Alpine stake, clarified that the German manufacturer is not seeking to turn Alpine into a junior team but is simply assessing the strategic merits of a minority share. "We are looking at it from different angles, and we haven’t come to any conclusions," Wolff said.
He added that the decision will be based on whether the investment makes sense for both parties. Other interested parties have also surfaced.
A consortium that includes former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has been reported as a potential buyer of the Alpine share, indicating that the market for minority stakes in F1 teams is becoming increasingly active. The debate over multi‑team ownership is likely to intensify as the sport prepares for the next season. With the Miami Grand Prix scheduled for May 1‑3, featuring the second sprint weekend of the year, fans will be watching not only the on‑track action but also the off‑track negotiations that could shape the competitive landscape for years to come. The outcome of these discussions will determine whether Formula 1 maintains a level playing field or moves toward a model where a handful of powerful entities control multiple entries, potentially reshaping the sport’s future.