FIA Splits on Multi-Team Rules as Red Bull Racing Opens Door to Ownership Caps

The FIA's internal debate on multi-team ownership has moved from paddock gossip to formal governance question. Red Bull Racing team principal Laurent Mekies told Reuters the team would accept stricter regulations on sister-team arrangements, a notable shift given Red Bull's structural advantage through its ownership of both the Milton Keynes outfit and the Faenza-based RB squad. The timing matters: new power-unit regulations arrive in 2026, and the commercial terms reset then too.

McLaren CEO Zak Brown sent a formal letter to FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem calling for ownership rule changes, according to multiple paddock sources. Brown has argued for months that shared technical resources between Red Bull Racing and RB create an unlevel commercial playing field, particularly in wind-tunnel allocation and personnel movement. The letter landed days after RB's Yuki Tsunoda posted competitive lap times in pre-season testing using what paddock engineers describe as evolutionary Red Bull aero philosophy. Brown's letter does not circulate by accident in an off-week.

The regulatory question centers on how much technical and personnel overlap the rules permit between teams under common ownership. Current FIA statutes allow shared facilities and transfer of non-listed parts, a framework that dates to the 2021 Concorde Agreement negotiations. Red Bull's structure lets it run RB as a de facto development program while maintaining compliance through separate listed-part production. Ford's entry as Red Bull's power-unit partner from 2026 adds complexity: the American manufacturer will supply only Red Bull Racing, not RB, which continues with a separate engine deal yet to be formally announced. That asymmetry gives Red Bull flexibility other multi-team structures lack.

Mekies' openness to rule changes reflects internal calculation more than sudden philosophy shift. Red Bull Racing holds six Constructors' Championships since 2010 and has embedded institutional knowledge that stricter ownership rules would not erase. If the FIA imposes personnel movement caps or mandates greater technical separation, Red Bull loses some optionality but retains the core advantage: two teams' worth of track data flowing through related engineering groups. The team's willingness to negotiate suggests confidence that any new framework will grandfather enough existing structure to preserve the developmental edge.

McLaren's lobbying carries weight because it comes from a position of performance. The Woking team finished second in the 2024 Constructors' standings and enters 2025 with a driver lineup—Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri—that paddock consensus rates among the grid's top three pairings. Brown is not writing letters from weakness. He is writing them because McLaren now competes for championships and needs every regulatory lever to narrow Red Bull's structural gap. The FIA's internal split—confirmed by sources close to the World Motor Sport Council—indicates some members see Brown's argument as valid, others view it as sour grapes.

The 2026 deadline matters because that is when the current Concorde Agreement's technical appendices come up for renegotiation. Teams have until roughly Q3 2025 to finalize positions before the FIA drafts new sporting regulations for the next era. If McLaren wants ownership rules changed, this is the window. Red Bull's apparent willingness to accept some restrictions suggests the team has already war-gamed scenarios and knows it can live with the likely outcome. The question is whether smaller teams—Haas, Sauber/Audi, Williams—side with McLaren or prefer the status quo, which at least allows them to buy listed parts from multiple manufacturers.

Watch for formal governance proposals at the next World Motor Sport Council meeting, expected in June 2025. Brown's letter will force the issue onto the agenda, and Mekies' public comments give the FIA cover to act without appearing to cave to one team's lobbying. Separately, track RB's engine announcement; if it signs with Honda or Renault, that creates a different political dynamic than if it somehow retains a Ford relationship through Red Bull's technical partnership. The personnel movement question will likely hinge on whether the FIA defines "common ownership" narrowly (direct shareholding) or broadly (effective control through contracts and shared facilities). Red Bull's legal team already knows which definition works better.