McLaren’s chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his long‑standing opposition to the practice of multi‑ownership and close affiliations between Formula 1 teams, a stance that has gained fresh relevance following reports that Mercedes is contemplating the purchase of a minority share in Alpine. Brown has been an outspoken detractor of what he terms “A‑B teams,” a situation where one outfit enjoys a deeper connection to another through either shared ownership or a technical partnership.
He argues that such relationships can erode the competitive balance of the sport and create an uneven playing field. Historically, the sport has seen several examples of these arrangements.
Red Bull has owned two separate entries since 2005, beginning with the acquisition of the then‑struggling Minardi team, which was rebranded as Scuderia Toro Rosso (now AlphaTauri). Ferrari maintains a long‑standing technical partnership with Haas, supplying power units and engineering support. Most recently, it emerged that Mercedes is among the parties interested in acquiring the 24 percent stake in Alpine that is currently held by Otro Capital, a U.S.
investment firm. Alpine’s majority owner remains the Renault Group, and its executive advisor, Flavio Briatore, has remarked that in a typical corporate structure the majority shareholder (75 percent) dictates the direction while the minority partner (25 percent) is essentially a passenger. While the FIA’s regulations do not expressly forbid such cross‑team ties, Brown, whose McLaren cars run on Mercedes engines, insists that his concerns apply universally, regardless of which entities are involved. He told Sky Sports News that he has spent a decade warning against co‑ownership and “A‑B teams,” believing they pose a serious risk to the sporting integrity of Formula 1.
Brown illustrated his point with several recent incidents. He cited a moment at the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix when Daniel Ricciardo, driving for Racing Bulls (the Red Bull‑owned junior team), took a point away from McLaren, indirectly benefiting Max Verstappen and Red Bull.
He also highlighted the transfer of intellectual property and staff between teams, noting that personnel can move overnight, granting the receiving team a competitive edge without any direct financial outlay, effectively circumventing the cost‑cap regulations. To make the issue more relatable, Brown likened it to a scenario in the Premier League where two clubs share the same ownership group. In such a case, one club could afford to lose matches while the other could survive relegation, undermining the fairness of the competition. He argued that the only acceptable relationship should be the supply of power units; beyond that, each of the eleven teams should operate as independently as possible.
During the latest round of Concorde Agreement negotiations, Brown raised these concerns with other stakeholders. He believes progress is being made but warns that past incidents demonstrate the need for stricter safeguards to prevent the proliferation of multi‑team ownership models. Despite his criticism, Brown expressed admiration for Red Bull’s contributions to the sport over the past two decades. He acknowledged the historical context of Red Bull’s acquisition of Minardi and the subsequent development of a successful second team.
However, he maintains that the model should not be replicated, emphasizing that the Racing Bulls and Red Bull cars now appear distinct, reflecting a conscious effort to keep the two entries separate. Brown recounted conversations with Laurent Mekies, Red Bull’s team principal, who he said has been open about the challenges of managing two teams under one umbrella. Mekies, according to Brown, is willing to discuss any concerns and is mindful of the sport’s perception, suggesting that Red Bull does not wish to push the envelope further. The Concorde Agreement discussions also touched on the possibility that one of the dual‑owned teams might eventually be divested to preserve competitive balance.
While acknowledging Red Bull’s historic achievements, Brown warned that expanding such ownership structures would be detrimental to Formula 1’s long‑term health. On the Mercedes side, team principal Toto Wolff clarified that the German manufacturer is not seeking to turn Alpine into a junior squad for its works team. Instead, Mercedes is simply evaluating the strategic merits of a minority investment, considering whether to purchase the share from Otro Capital. Wolff stated that the decision is still under review and that no conclusion has been reached.
Adding another layer to the ownership intrigue, a consortium that includes former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has also expressed interest in Alpine’s shares, indicating that multiple parties see value in aligning with the French outfit. As the sport heads into the Miami Grand Prix weekend, the debate over multi‑team ownership is likely to remain a hot topic.
Fans and stakeholders will be watching closely to see whether regulatory bodies tighten the rules or allow the current landscape to evolve further. The outcome will shape how Formula 1 balances commercial interests with the core principle of fair competition, ensuring that each of the eleven teams can compete on an even footing without undue influence from shared ownership or technical alliances.