McLaren’s chief executive Zak Brown has once again voiced his long‑standing objections to the growing trend of multi‑ownership and close‑knit partnerships between Formula 1 teams, a stance that has resurfaced as Mercedes evaluates a possible minority investment in Alpine. Brown, who has been an outspoken critic of what he labels “A‑B teams” – situations where one outfit enjoys a deeper, often structural, relationship with another through shared ownership or technical collaboration – used recent developments to underline his concerns. The notion of A‑B teams is not new to the sport. Red Bull, for instance, has owned two separate entries since 2005, while Ferrari maintains a historic technical alliance with Haas.
The latest twist comes from reports that Mercedes is among several parties interested in purchasing the 24 percent share of Alpine currently held by Otro Capital, a U.S. investment firm. Alpine’s majority shareholder is the Renault Group, and the team’s executive advisor, Flavio Briatore, has remarked that in a typical corporate structure the majority holder (75 percent) makes the decisions while the minority partner (25 percent) merely rides along.
Although such ownership structures are permissible under the sport’s regulations, Brown, whose McLaren cars run on Mercedes power units, insists that his viewpoint applies universally: "Regardless of who it is, I frown upon it." He argues that any relationship between teams should be limited to the provision of customer power‑units and nothing more. In an interview with Sky Sports News, Brown said, "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 illustrated his point with concrete examples from recent races. At the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix, Brown noted that a fastest‑lap point earned by Daniel Ricciardo while driving for Racing Bulls (the rebranded Red Bull Racing) effectively helped Max Verstappen and the Red Bull team, thereby raising questions about fairness.
He also highlighted the rapid transfer of intellectual property and staff between teams, noting that such moves can give a competitive edge without the financial outlay that a cost‑cap would normally require. "We’ve seen IP transfer from one team to another.
We've seen staff move from one team to another overnight where I have to wait until 2028. So they get a sporting advantage there, sometimes that comes with some remuneration – they're not going to have to write a cheque, so it's a cost‑cap advantage," Brown explained. Brown drew a vivid analogy to football to make his argument more accessible: "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 run in F1 if ownership becomes too intertwined." He concluded that the only acceptable level of collaboration should be the supply of engines, after which each of the eleven teams must operate as independently as possible. During a McLaren media briefing, Brown said he had raised these concerns during the most recent Concorde Agreement negotiations, which bring together the sport’s governing bodies, teams, and commercial rights holders.
He believes the issue is being addressed but warns that past incidents demonstrate the need for stricter safeguards: "I think it’s being managed now, but we’ve seen incidents in the past and we need to do away with it, not increase it." While acknowledging Red Bull’s impressive achievements over two decades – including their takeover of the struggling Minardi team in 2005 to create a second outfit – Brown cautions against using that model as a blueprint for the future. "I’m glad to see, quite frankly, that the Racing Bulls and the Red Bull don’t look like the same race car," he said, emphasizing that the two teams now appear distinct in design and operation. Brown also mentioned his conversations with Laurent Mekies, Red Bull’s team principal, noting that Mekies has been open about the challenges of managing dual‑team ownership.
"I’m not picking on him in particular, but he’s the only one who’s got two teams and he’s been very open and transparent: ‘Hey, if you see something you don’t like, let’s just chat about it.’ So I think they recognise it and don’t want to push the envelope," Brown added. The Concorde Agreement discussions have even touched on the possibility of forcing a divestiture of one of the linked teams over time, a measure that would aim to preserve competitive balance. Brown expressed appreciation for the contributions of multi‑team owners to the sport’s growth, yet he stresses that any expansion of such models would be detrimental: "As long as it’s managed and watched… adding to it would be a mistake for the sport." Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff, when asked about the potential Alpine stake, clarified that the German outfit does not intend to turn Alpine into a junior team.
Instead, Wolff said Mercedes is simply evaluating whether a minority share makes strategic sense, stating, "We are looking at it from different angles, and we haven’t come to any conclusions. We want to know whether it makes sense." Other interested parties include a consortium featuring former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner, underscoring the high level of interest in Alpine’s shareholdings.
Brown’s remarks come at a time when the sport is gearing up for the Miami Grand Prix, the second sprint weekend of the season, scheduled for May 1‑3 and broadcast live on Sky Sports F1. The ongoing debate over team ownership structures, cross‑team collaborations, and the integrity of competition remains a central theme as Formula 1 continues to evolve both on and off the track.