McLaren's chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his longstanding objections to the practice of multi‑ownership and close technical ties between Formula 1 teams, a debate that has resurfaced following reports that Mercedes is considering acquiring a minority share in Alpine. Brown has been an outspoken opponent of what he labels "A‑B teams" – situations where one outfit enjoys a deeper, often covert, relationship with another through shared ownership, strategic partnerships, or the transfer of personnel and intellectual property.
The issue of intertwined team structures is not new to the sport. Red Bull has owned two separate entries since 2005, initially purchasing the then‑struggling Minardi team and rebranding it as Toro Rosso (now known as Scuderia AlphaTauri). Ferrari maintains a long‑standing technical alliance with Haas, providing the American outfit with power units and engineering support. Most recently, speculation grew after it emerged that Mercedes was among the parties interested in buying the 24 percent stake in Alpine currently held by Otro Capital, a U.S.
investment firm. Alpine remains majority‑owned by the Renault Group, while Flavio Briatore, the Enstone‑based team's executive adviser, has remarked that in a typical corporate arrangement the majority shareholder (75 percent) dictates the direction, leaving the minority holder (25 percent) as a passive passenger. Although such ownership models are permitted under the sport's regulations, Brown—whose McLaren cars run on Mercedes power units—stressed that his concerns apply universally, regardless of which manufacturers or investors are involved. "I frown upon it," he told Sky Sports News, adding that cross‑team relationships should be limited to the provision of customer power units and nothing more.
Brown recounted his decade‑long stance against co‑ownership, saying, "I've been saying for 10 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." He cited several recent examples that illustrate the potential for unfair advantage.
At the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix, Daniel Ricciardo, driving for Racing Bulls (the rebranded AlphaTauri), took a point away from McLaren, indirectly assisting Max Verstappen and Red Bull in the championship battle. Brown also highlighted the rapid transfer of intellectual property and staff between teams, noting that personnel can move overnight, granting the receiving team a cost‑cap advantage because they acquire expertise without having to pay a transfer fee.
To make the issue more relatable, Brown compared it to football: "Can you imagine a Premier League game where two clubs are owned by the same group? One club could afford to lose while the other fights relegation.
That's the risk we face in F1." He argued that the only acceptable relationship should be that of a supplier and customer for power units, and that each of the 11 teams should strive for maximal independence. Brown said he raised these concerns during the most recent Concorde Agreement negotiations, emphasizing that the sport must move away from such arrangements rather than expand them.
While he expressed "huge appreciation" for Red Bull's two‑decade investment and its role in revitalising a struggling Minardi, he warned against replicating that model. "I'm glad to see, quite frankly, that the Racing Bulls and the Red Bull don't look like the same race car," he noted, indicating that the two entries now operate with distinct technical identities.
He also referenced conversations with Laurent Mekies, Red Bull's team principal, who, according to Brown, has been transparent about the challenges of owning two teams. "He's the only one who's got two teams and he's been very open and transparent: 'If you see something you don't like, let's just chat about it.'" This suggests that even Red Bull recognises the delicate balance required to keep competition fair. The Concorde Agreement discussions have reportedly touched on the possibility of mandating the divestiture of one of the co‑owned teams over time.
Brown reiterated his belief that while historical arrangements may be tolerated, any expansion would be detrimental to the sport's credibility. Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff, when asked about the potential Alpine investment, clarified that the German manufacturer does not intend to turn Alpine into a junior squad for its works team.
Instead, Wolff said Mercedes is simply evaluating whether a minority stake makes commercial sense. "We are looking at it from different angles, and we haven't come to any conclusions," he said.
"We want to know whether it makes sense." Adding another layer to the ownership puzzle, a consortium that includes former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has also shown interest in the Alpine shares, indicating that multiple parties see strategic value in gaining a foothold within the French outfit. The broader context of these discussions is the upcoming F1 calendar, with the Miami Grand Prix slated for May 1‑3, featuring the season's second sprint weekend.
Fans can follow the action live on Sky Sports F1 or stream via NOW without a contract, reflecting the sport's ongoing push to make its content more accessible. In summary, Zak Brown's renewed critique underscores a growing unease about multi‑team ownership and deep technical collaborations in Formula 1. While such structures are currently allowed, Brown argues they threaten the sport's competitive balance and should be limited to power‑unit supply contracts. The ongoing negotiations in the Concorde Agreement, combined with the interest from heavyweight manufacturers and former team principals, suggest that the debate over team independence will remain a pivotal issue as Formula 1 moves toward its 2026 regulatory overhaul.