McLaren chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his long‑standing opposition to the practice of multi‑team ownership and closely linked partnerships within Formula 1, a stance he reiterated as news emerged that Mercedes is evaluating a possible minority investment in Alpine. Brown, who has been a vocal opponent of what he labels "A‑B teams"—situations where one outfit enjoys a deeper, often ownership‑based, relationship with another—argued that such arrangements threaten the sport’s competitive fairness. The concept of "A‑B teams" is not new to the sport. Red Bull, for example, has owned two separate entries since 2005, while Ferrari maintains a historic technical partnership with Haas.
More recently, reports indicated that Mercedes was among several parties interested in acquiring the 24 percent share of Alpine currently held by the U.S. investment firm Otro Capital. Alpine’s majority shareholder is the Renault Group, and the team’s executive advisor, Flavio Briatore, has described the ownership structure as a typical scenario where a dominant 75 percent holder makes the decisions while the minority 25 percent stakeholder remains largely passive.
Although the Formula 1 regulations do not forbid such ownership configurations, Brown—whose own McLaren cars are powered by Mercedes engines—stressed that his concerns apply universally, regardless of which manufacturers or investors are involved. "I frown upon it in any form," he said, emphasizing that the only acceptable relationship between teams should be the supply of power units, not deeper strategic or financial ties. Speaking to Sky Sports News, Brown recounted a decade‑long campaign against co‑ownership, warning that it poses a serious risk to the sport’s integrity.
He cited specific incidents that illustrate the problem: the fastest lap recorded by a driver from a subsidiary team that indirectly benefited a rival, the transfer of intellectual property between affiliated teams, and the rapid movement of staff from one outfit to another—sometimes before contractual cooling‑off periods expire. "When staff move overnight, the receiving team gains a competitive edge without the usual cost‑cap penalties," he explained, noting that such advantages can be achieved without any direct financial outlay.
Brown drew a vivid analogy to football, asking listeners to imagine two Premier League clubs owned by the same consortium. "If one club gets relegated, the other can simply absorb the loss," he said. "That’s the danger we face in F1 if ownership becomes too intertwined." He continued, "Engine supply should be the furthest point of collaboration. All eleven teams need to operate as independently as possible." Brown added that he raised these issues during the most recent Concorde Agreement negotiations, expressing hope that the governing bodies are now managing the situation more closely.
"We’ve seen incidents in the past, and we must eliminate them rather than allow them to grow," he asserted. While acknowledging Red Bull’s two‑decade‑long investment in the sport and the historical context that led them to acquire the struggling Minardi team in 2005, Brown cautioned against using that model as a template for the future. "I’m pleased that the Racing Bulls and Red Bull no longer look like the same car," he remarked, indicating that the teams have diverged sufficiently to mitigate conflict of interest concerns. Brown also referenced conversations he’s had with Red Bull’s team principal Laurent Mekies, noting that Mekies has been transparent about the challenges of owning multiple teams.
"He’s the only one with two teams, and he’s been open: ‘If you see something you don’t like, let’s discuss it.’" This openness, Brown suggested, shows that even those directly involved recognize the need for careful oversight. The Concorde Agreement discussions have even touched on the possibility that, over time, one of the linked teams might need to be divested to preserve competitive balance. Brown expressed appreciation for the contributions Red Bull has made to Formula 1, but warned that expanding the multi‑team model would be a mistake for the sport’s health. Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff, when asked about the Alpine stake, clarified that the German manufacturer does not intend to turn Alpine into a junior team to its works outfit.
Instead, Wolff said Mercedes is simply assessing whether a minority share makes commercial sense. "We are looking at it from different angles and haven’t reached any conclusions yet," he told reporters. Other interested parties have also emerged, including a consortium featuring former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner, indicating that the market for Alpine’s minority share is competitive. As the F1 calendar heads into its next phase, with the Miami Grand Prix scheduled for May 1‑3 and the second Sprint weekend of the season, the debate over team independence versus strategic partnerships remains a focal point for fans, teams, and regulators alike.
Brown’s remarks underscore a broader conversation about how Formula 1 can evolve while safeguarding the level playing field that is essential to its global appeal.