McLaren chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his long‑standing opposition to the practice of multi‑ownership and tightly knit alliances between Formula 1 teams, a stance that has gained fresh relevance following reports that Mercedes is considering purchasing a minority share in Alpine. Brown has been a vocal critic of what he labels "A‑B teams" – situations where one outfit enjoys a privileged relationship with another, either through direct ownership stakes or through deep technical collaborations that go beyond the usual customer‑supplier arrangements.
The issue of intertwined team interests is not new to the sport. Red Bull has owned two separate entries – Red Bull Racing and Scuderia AlphaTauri – since 2005, creating a clear example of a single corporate entity fielding multiple cars. Ferrari, meanwhile, maintains a long‑standing technical partnership with Haas, providing the American team with power units and engineering support that some argue blurs the line between independent competition and a de facto subsidiary.
The latest development adds Mercedes to this list of potential multi‑team stakeholders: the German manufacturer is reportedly among a group of investors evaluating the purchase of the 24 percent share in Alpine that is currently held by the U.S. investment firm Otro Capital.
Alpine is majority‑owned by the Renault Group, and Flavio Briatore, who serves as the Enstone‑based team's executive advisor, has offered a candid perspective on the ownership structure. He likened the situation to a company in which a 75 percent shareholder makes the strategic decisions while the remaining 25 percent is essentially a passive passenger.
Briatore's remarks underscore the reality that, even when minority stakes are involved, the influence of a powerful partner can be significant. While such arrangements are permissible under the current FIA regulations, Brown, whose McLaren cars run on Mercedes power units, argued that his concerns apply universally, regardless of which manufacturers or investors are involved. "I frown upon it," he said, emphasizing that cross‑team connections should be limited strictly to the supply of customer power units and nothing more.
In an interview with Sky Sports News, Brown elaborated on his decade‑long opposition to co‑ownership and the formation of "A‑B teams." He warned that these relationships pose a high risk to the sporting integrity of Formula 1. "We've seen fastest laps from one team that directly benefit another – for example, Daniel Ricciardo, when he was driving for Racing Bulls, took a point away from McLaren that helped Max Verstappen and Red Bull at the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix," he recounted.
Brown also highlighted the transfer of intellectual property and personnel between teams, noting that staff can move overnight, granting the receiving team a competitive edge without the need to spend under the cost cap. "That creates a hidden advantage that undermines the level playing field the sport strives for," he argued.
Brown drew a vivid analogy to football to illustrate his point: "Imagine a Premier League season where two clubs are owned by the same group. One club could afford to be relegated while the other stays safe. That's the kind of imbalance we risk in F1 if ownership structures become too intertwined." He insisted that the only acceptable relationship between teams should be the traditional customer‑supplier model for engines, and that each of the eleven entries should operate as independently as possible. During the most recent round of Concorde Agreement negotiations, Brown said he raised these concerns directly with the sport's stakeholders.
He believes the issue is being addressed but cautions that past incidents show the need for stricter safeguards. "We have seen problems before, and we need to eliminate them rather than let them grow," he said. Brown also expressed admiration for Red Bull's achievements over the past two decades, acknowledging the strategic move in 2005 when the Austrian outfit took over the struggling Minardi team to create a second entry.
However, he stressed that this model should not become a template for future ownership structures. "I'm glad to see that Racing Bulls and Red Bull don't look like the same race car any more," he noted, indicating that the teams have diverged sufficiently to mitigate concerns. He mentioned ongoing dialogues with Laurent Mekies, Red Bull's team principal, who, according to Brown, has been transparent about the challenges of dual‑team 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 openness, 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 co‑owned teams might need to be divested to preserve competition. Brown reiterated his respect for Red Bull's contributions to the sport but warned that expanding the model would be a mistake. Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff, when asked about the Alpine investment, clarified that the German manufacturer does not intend to turn Alpine into a junior team to its works outfit.
Instead, Mercedes is simply evaluating whether a minority stake makes commercial sense. "We are looking at it from different angles and haven't reached any conclusions yet," Wolff said. He added that the decision will consider the broader impact on the sport's competitive balance.
Adding another layer to the ownership intrigue, a consortium that includes former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has also shown interest in acquiring the Alpine share. This potential involvement of another high‑profile figure from the sport further underscores the growing complexity of team ownership structures. As the Formula 1 calendar rolls on, the sport returns to action on May 1‑3 with the Miami Grand Prix, featuring the season's second Sprint weekend. 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 highlights a fundamental tension within Formula 1: the desire for financial investment and strategic partnerships versus the need to maintain a fair and independent competitive environment. While ownership stakes and technical alliances can bring resources and innovation, they also risk creating an uneven playing field where certain teams benefit from privileged access to technology, data, and talent. Brown's call for stricter limits—essentially confining relationships to engine supply contracts—reflects a broader conversation among teams, regulators, and fans about how to preserve the sport's integrity as it continues to evolve in the era of increasing commercialisation.