McLaren chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his long‑standing opposition to the growing trend of multi‑ownership and tightly‑linked partnerships within Formula One, a stance that has resurfaced now that Mercedes is reportedly exploring the purchase of a minority share in Alpine. Brown has been an outspoken detractor of what he labels "A‑B teams" – arrangements where one outfit enjoys a deeper, often privileged, relationship with another through shared ownership, technical collaborations, or other forms of close cooperation.
The issue is not new to the sport. Red Bull has owned two separate entries since 2005, initially acquiring the then‑struggling Minardi team and rebranding it as Scuderia Toro Rosso before later renaming it AlphaTauri.
Ferrari, meanwhile, maintains a long‑standing technical partnership with the American outfit Haas, providing engines and engineering support that give the smaller team a distinct advantage. Most recently, reports have emerged that Mercedes is among a group of potential investors interested in acquiring the 24 per cent stake in Alpine currently held by the U.S. investment firm Otro Capital.
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 per cent) makes the decisions while the minority partner (25 per cent) is essentially a passenger. While such ownership structures are allowed under the sport’s regulations, Brown, whose McLaren cars are powered by Mercedes engines, argues that the principle applies universally and that he "frowns upon" any form of cross‑team entanglement that goes beyond the simple provision of power units. He believes that the only acceptable relationship between teams should be a customer‑supplier link for engines, with no deeper strategic or operational ties.
Speaking to Sky Sports News, Brown reiterated 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 concrete examples to illustrate his concerns. At the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix, for instance, Daniel Ricciardo, driving for the Racing Bulls (formerly AlphaTauri), took a point away from McLaren, indirectly benefiting Max Verstappen and Red Bull. Brown also highlighted the transfer of intellectual property and personnel between teams, noting that staff can move overnight, sometimes circumventing the 2028 freeze on such moves, thereby granting a cost‑cap advantage to the receiving team without any direct financial outlay.
Brown drew an analogy to football to make his point clear: "Can you imagine a Premier League game where two clubs are owned by the same group? One could afford to lose and still stay up, while the other faces relegation. That's the risk we face in F1 if we allow multiple teams under the same umbrella." He stressed that the provision of engines should be the furthest extent of any partnership, and that each of the eleven teams should operate as independently as possible. He added that his concerns had been raised during the latest round of Concorde Agreement negotiations, which bring together the sport’s governing bodies, teams, and commercial rights holders.
"I think it's being managed now," Brown said, "but we've seen incidents in the past and we need to do away with it, not increase it." While he expressed "huge appreciation" for Red Bull's investment and development over two decades, he warned against replicating their model of owning two competitive entries. "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 some separation is evident, yet the underlying ownership remains a concern. Brown mentioned ongoing conversations with Red Bull team principal Laurent Mekies, acknowledging that Mekies has been open about the challenges of dual‑team ownership and is willing to discuss any perceived issues.
"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 at least some team principals recognize the potential pitfalls and are willing to cooperate to mitigate them. The Concorde Agreement discussions have also touched on the possibility that, over time, one of the co‑owned teams might need to be divested to preserve competition. Brown reiterated his belief that while historical arrangements can be tolerated if they are properly overseen, expanding them would be detrimental to 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, Mercedes is simply evaluating whether a minority investment makes commercial 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." A separate consortium, reportedly involving former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner, has also expressed interest in the Alpine shares, underscoring the competitive interest in expanding influence within the sport. The broader context of Brown's comments comes at a time when Formula One is preparing for a busy May schedule, beginning with the Miami Grand Prix and a 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 in modern Formula One: the balance between commercial partnerships that can bring technical benefits and the need to maintain a level playing field where each team competes on its own merits. As the sport continues to evolve with new investment, technology, and regulatory changes, the debate over multi‑team ownership and deep alliances is likely to remain a focal point for team principals, regulators, and fans alike.