McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown has written to the FIA requesting stricter enforcement of cross-team ownership rules, naming Red Bull and Alpine as examples of organizational structures that merit examination. The letter, sent in recent weeks, argues Formula 1 lacks the bright-line ownership prohibitions common in the NFL, Premier League, and major North American franchises.
Brown's concerns center on two scenarios. Red Bull operates both its factory team and the Faenza-based RB squad, which fields drivers and shares technical resources under the $140 million cost-cap era. Alpine's parent Renault supplies power units to the Enstone team while maintaining commercial ties to junior programs and customer teams. Brown's letter stops short of alleging specific rule violations but questions whether the existing framework prevents competitive conflicts when a single entity controls multiple entries or exerts material influence over more than one constructor.
The timing is tactical. Formula 1's Concorde Agreement, signed in 2021 and binding through 2025, allocated governance authority between teams, the FIA, and commercial rights holder Liberty Media. The ten franchises each hold seats on the F1 Commission, where voting weight determines everything from calendar expansion to sprint-race formats. If one ownership group influences two votes, McLaren argues, the balance shifts. The FIA's International Sporting Code prohibits a single entity from holding stakes in competing teams, but the rule's language predates the modern cost-cap structure and doesn't define "control" with precision. Brown wants that gap closed before the next Concorde cycle opens in 2025.
Red Bull's dual operation is the clearest target. The Milton Keynes team has won three consecutive constructors' championships while RB finished eighth in 2023, fielding rookies and testing aero concepts that inform the senior squad's development path. Both teams operate under separate cost caps and employ distinct technical directors, but they share the same owner—Red Bull GmbH—and the same engine supplier starting in 2026, when Red Bull Powertrains delivers hybrid units to both garages. McLaren's position is that common ownership creates information asymmetries that undermine competitive integrity, even if technical data transfers comply with FIA protocols.
Alpine's situation is murkier. Renault owns the Enstone constructor outright but no longer supplies customer engines after McLaren switched to Mercedes and Williams moved to Mercedes power for 2026. Alpine's commercial ties to junior series and driver academies give it influence over talent pipelines, but Brown's letter appears less focused on Alpine than on establishing precedent. The FIA has not publicly responded to the correspondence, and sources close to the governing body say any rule clarification would require F1 Commission approval, meaning Red Bull and Alpine would vote on constraints affecting their own structures.
The broader context is franchise valuation. McLaren is 30 percent owned by Ares Management and MSP Sports Capital, both of whom underwrote the team's survival during COVID-19 by lending against future prize money. Those lenders care about competitive balance because uneven governance erodes the $1 billion-plus franchise valuations now standard in F1. If Red Bull's structure is replicated—Audi entering with two teams, or Andretti launching with Cadillac backing and a second grid slot—McLaren's sponsors and investors face a grid where voting blocs matter more than lap times. Brown's letter is as much a pitch to his own board as it is a complaint to the FIA.
Disney's expanded deal with F1 Academy, announced this week, adds pressure. The Mouse is now licensing F1 intellectual property across its junior series, a move that signals Disney sees F1 franchises as stable, premium assets comparable to NBA teams. That calculation assumes governance rules prevent any single owner from gaming the system. Brown's letter reminds the FIA that institutional money won't tolerate ambiguity.
What happens next depends on the F1 Commission's January session, where team principals review 2024 financials and begin preliminary Concorde discussions. Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has historically defended the RB structure as compliant and beneficial for driver development, a position he'll likely repeat if Brown's letter reaches the agenda. Alpine's new leadership—Flavio Briatore returned as executive advisor in mid-2024—has not commented, but Briatore's history includes the 2008 Singapore crash scandal, a data point McLaren will reference if governance debates turn adversarial.
The cleaner outcome is an amended ISC rule that defines "control" to include shared ownership, technical partnerships, and engine-supply agreements. That requires FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem to draft language, circulate it for comment, and push it through the World Motor Sport Council. The messier outcome is legal arbitration, which McLaren has threatened in prior disputes over cost-cap penalties and technical directives. Brown's letter sets a paper trail.
Watch for FIA responses by mid-January, when the 2025 sporting regulations are finalized. If no rule clarification appears, McLaren's next move is a formal protest at the season-opening Bahrain Grand Prix, targeting Red Bull's RB entry on governance grounds. That would force the FIA to adjudicate mid-season, a scenario no one wants but everyone is now preparing for.