Brown: Cozy team alliances a risk for F1’s ‘sporting fairness’

Zak Brown has once again lit the fuse on one of the sport’s most controversial topics: the blurred lines between so-called “A teams” and “B teams” in Formula 1.

The McLaren racing boss has reiterated his warning that the cozy relationships between some outfits are threatening to turn the world’s most prestigious racing series into a rigged game.

For Brown, the issue isn't just a matter of technicalities – it’s a battle for the soul of the sport.

The scrutiny on team partnerships has intensified recently, particularly following the revolving door of personnel between Red Bull Racing and its sister squad, Racing Bulls.

While McLaren faces a potential wait until 2028 to integrate GianPiero Lambiase from Red Bull, the energy drink giant recently moved Andrea Landi from the sister team to the main Milton Keynes squad with just a ten-week gap.

The fairness crisis

Brown isn't just looking at the Austrian empire, though. He’s pointing fingers at the Haas-Ferrari "Maranello connection" and the news that Mercedes is eyeing a 24% stake in Alpine.

To Brown, the current state of affairs is a ticking time bomb for the sport’s credibility.

“I think A/B teams, we need to get away from as much as possible, as quickly as possible,” he told reporters earlier this week.

“Co-ownership – which we have one group now, and I understand how that came about, why it came about – in today's day and age, that's permitted in almost, if not all, major forms of sport.

“It runs a real high risk of compromising the integrity of sporting fairness. What would turn fans off as if they don't feel like there's 11 independent racing teams?”

The McLaren boss argues that these alliances provide unfair shortcuts that independent teams simply can't access.

“I've been vocal about it from day one. We've seen it play out on track in a sporting way,” he added.

“Daniel Ricciardo taking the fastest-lap point away from us [in Singapore in 2024] to help the other team. We've seen IP violations [in 2020] on the Aston Martin/Racing Point on brake ducts.”

A red card for common ownership

The financial implications are just as thorny. Under the strict cost cap era, every dollar – and every day of "gardening leave" for staff – counts. Brown argues that the seamless movement of engineers between partnered teams creates an uneven playing field.

“We've seen employees move overnight, where we either have to wait and sometimes make financial deals, which then impacts us on the cost cap,” Brown continued.

“So, when you see other [staff] that move from one to the other without financial compensation, that's an unfair financial advantage, that's an unfair sporting advantage. We've seen Ferrari and Haas move people back and forth. We know IP is a lot in your head.”

To illustrate his point, Brown draws a comparison to the world’s most popular soccer league.

“So, you put that all together; can you imagine a Premier League game when you've got two teams owned by the same group, one's going to get relegated if they lose, the other can afford to lose? And that's what we run the risk of,” he explained.

For Brown, the solution is simple: total independence.

“So, I think having engine power units as suppliers is as far as it should go. And then in my view, all 11 teams should be absolutely as independent as possible, because I think it has a high risk and we have seen it compromise the integrity of the sport, and that will be what turns fans off quicker than anything else.”

• Read also: Red Bull shakes up tech team as performance questions mount

While the current Concorde Agreement allows these structures to exist, Brown is pushing for the next iteration of F1's "constitution" to tighten the leash.

When asked about progress on the matter, he noted: “It was a big discussion in the last Concorde. I wrote to the FIA and Formula 1 last year on the topic, because we see things happen all the time and we flag them. I think there's a higher level of awareness and watching by the FIA.”

Despite his hardline stance, Brown maintains a level of respect for the history of the sport, acknowledging Red Bull's massive investment over the decades.

“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.

“I've had these conversations with Laurent [Mekies] – 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 of, ‘Hey, if you see something that you don't like, let's just chat about it’.

“So, I think they recognise it and don't want to push the envelope. There were discussions in the Concorde Agreement about, ‘Should over time one of the teams be divested?’.

“But also, I have a huge appreciation for what they've done for the sport and how that was done a long time ago. So, as long as it's managed, watched… but certainly adding to it would be a mistake for the sport.”

Keep up to date with all the F1 news via X and Facebook