McLaren’s chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his longstanding opposition to the practice of multi‑team ownership and close technical alliances within Formula 1, a stance that has gained renewed relevance following reports that Mercedes is exploring the purchase of a minority share in Alpine. Brown has been an outspoken detractor of what he labels “A‑B teams” – a situation 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 can erode the competitive balance that the sport relies on to remain compelling for fans and fair for participants. The issue is not new.
Red Bull has owned two separate entries, Red Bull Racing and Scuderia AlphaTauri, since 2005, while Ferrari maintains a long‑standing technical partnership with Haas. More recently, it emerged that Mercedes, already a supplier of power units to Alpine, is among several parties interested in acquiring the 24 percent share currently held by the U.S.
investment firm Otro Capital. Alpine’s majority owner is the Renault Group, and Flavio Briatore, who serves as the Enstone‑based team’s executive adviser, has commented that in a typical corporate structure the majority shareholder (75 percent) makes the decisions while the minority holder (25 percent) is essentially a passive passenger.
This, he suggests, reflects the reality of the Alpine ownership model. While such structures are permissible under current FIA regulations, Brown, whose own team relies on Mercedes engines, insists that his objections apply universally, regardless of which parties are involved.
"I frown upon it," he said, emphasizing that cross‑team ties should be limited to the supply of customer power units and nothing beyond. In an interview with Sky Sports News, Brown explained his position: "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." He cited several concrete examples that illustrate his concerns. At the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix, for instance, Daniel Ricciardo, driving for the Racing Bulls (formerly AlphaTauri), secured a point that indirectly benefited Max Verstappen and Red Bull Racing. "We have seen fastest laps from one team, Daniel Ricciardo [when driving for Racing Bulls] take a point away from McLaren to help Max [Verstappen] and Red Bull," Brown noted. He also highlighted the transfer of intellectual property and personnel between affiliated teams, pointing out that staff can move overnight, giving the receiving team a competitive edge without incurring the usual costs associated with talent acquisition under the sport’s cost‑cap rules.
Brown drew a vivid analogy to illustrate the potential danger: "Can you imagine a Premier League game where two clubs are owned by the same group? One could afford to lose, while the other faces relegation. That’s the risk we run in F1 if ownership becomes too intertwined." His proposed solution is straightforward: keep the relationship between teams limited to the provision of engines.
"Engine power‑unit supply should be as far as it goes," he said. "All eleven teams should be as independent as possible." During the recent Concorde Agreement negotiations, Brown raised these concerns with other stakeholders, acknowledging that the issue is being monitored but insisting that past incidents demonstrate the need for stricter safeguards.
"We’ve seen incidents in the past and we need to do away with it, not increase it," he asserted. Brown also expressed admiration for Red Bull’s pioneering investment in the sport, noting that the company’s acquisition of the struggling Minardi team in 2005 was a bold move that ultimately reshaped the grid.
However, he warned that replicating that model could be problematic. "I’m glad to see, quite frankly, that the Racing Bulls and the Red Bull don’t look like the same race car," he observed, indicating that visual differentiation alone does not address deeper structural concerns. He recounted conversations with Red Bull team principal Laurent Mekies, emphasizing that the Red Bull leadership is aware of the controversy and is willing to discuss any perceived conflicts. "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 talk about it,’" Brown said, suggesting that at least some owners recognize the need for transparency.
The Concorde Agreement discussions have reportedly touched on the possibility of mandating the divestiture of one of the teams in a multi‑team ownership scenario, though no definitive measures have been adopted yet. Brown stressed that while he respects the historical contributions of owners like Red Bull, any expansion of the model would be a mistake for the sport’s long‑term health. Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff, when asked about the Alpine stake, clarified that the German marque is not seeking to turn Alpine into a junior team for its works outfit. Instead, Mercedes is simply evaluating whether a minority investment makes strategic sense.
"We are looking at it from different angles and we haven’t come to any conclusions," Wolff 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, underscoring the growing appetite among established F1 figures to acquire additional footholds on the grid. As the sport heads into the Miami Grand Prix weekend, the debate over multi‑team ownership remains a hot topic. Fans and officials alike will be watching closely to see whether regulatory bodies will tighten the rules to preserve competitive equity, or whether the business realities of modern motorsport will continue to allow such intertwined relationships to flourish.