Formula 1 has long wrestled with the tension between commercial pragmatism and sporting fairness, but McLaren CEO Zak Brown has brought that debate back into sharp focus with a pointed critique of the B team model that has become an increasingly prominent feature of the modern grid. His comments, directed squarely at arrangements like the one Red Bull has operated for nearly two decades, raise uncomfortable questions about whether F1 is truly a competition between independent constructors or a stage managed performance with predetermined hierarchies baked into the rulebook.
The B Team Problem in Plain Sight
Brown’s concern centers on the structural relationships between parent teams and their affiliated junior outfits, arrangements where technical components, strategic information, and even personnel flow freely between what are supposed to be competing entities. In theory, every team on the grid lines up as an independent constructor fighting for points and prize money. In practice, when one team is owned by the same entity as another, the line between collaboration and competition becomes dangerously blurred.
Red Bull’s dual team structure is the most visible example. The energy drink giant has operated two F1 entries for roughly twenty years, running Red Bull Racing alongside Toro Rosso, which became AlphaTauri and later Visa Cash App RB. The arrangement has served Red Bull well as a driver development pipeline and as a mechanism for maximizing political influence within the sport’s governance structures. Brown argues it also compromises the integrity of the competition itself, and he is calling on regulators to take a harder look at the rules governing these relationships.
An Uneven Playing Field
The core of Brown’s argument is straightforward. When two teams share ownership, technical resources, and institutional knowledge, the competition between them is not genuine. A midfield team operating without those connections is fighting a fundamentally different battle than an affiliated squad that can lean on the infrastructure, experience, and components of a front-running parent. Brown has called for clearer regulations to address these dynamics, pushing F1’s governing bodies to define more precisely what is and is not permissible in terms of inter-team relationships.
The concern is not purely philosophical. Technical partnerships and customer team arrangements affect where cars finish on Sundays, how championship points are distributed, and ultimately how prize money flows back through the paddock. If affiliated teams are consistently advantaged by their structural ties, independent outfits face a steeper climb simply because of how they are organized rather than how well they develop and execute.
History Has Been Here Before
This is not the first time the sport has grappled with these questions. The relationship between Ferrari and Sauber was scrutinized for years, including a notorious moment from the 1997 season when Norberto Fontana, driving for Sauber with Ferrari engines, was alleged to have held up competitors in a way that benefited Michael Schumacher’s title challenge. The incident became a symbol of how close technical and political ties between teams could distort on-track outcomes, even if unintentionally.
Red Bull’s model is different in that the ownership link is direct and explicit rather than merely commercial. That clarity arguably makes the issue easier to legislate, but it also reflects how normalized the arrangement has become. The FIA and Formula One Management have allowed the dual team structure to operate for so long that unwinding it or placing meaningful restrictions on it would require both political will and regulatory precision that has so far been absent.
Pressure on the FIA and FOM to Act
Brown’s public comments are likely to increase pressure on the FIA and FOM to revisit the regulations governing team ownership and technical partnerships. The debate around customer teams has ebbed and flowed throughout F1’s modern era, but the sport’s current competitive landscape, where constructor identities and technical partnerships are more intertwined than ever, makes the conversation more urgent.
There is also a broader commercial dimension. As F1 continues to attract new investors, teams, and audiences, the perception of genuine competition matters. If fans and stakeholders begin to suspect that results are shaped as much by corporate structure as by engineering talent and driver skill, the sport’s credibility takes a hit. Brown understands this dynamic as well as anyone in the paddock, having overseen McLaren’s transformation into one of the grid’s most competitive and commercially successful independent outfits.
His position also carries a degree of self-interest worth acknowledging. McLaren competes without a sister team and without the structural advantages that a dual entry brings. That context does not invalidate his argument, but it is part of the conversation. Independent teams have a clear incentive to push for regulations that level the playing field, and Brown is using his platform to make that case as loudly as possible.
Looking Ahead
Zak Brown’s critique of the B team model is unlikely to produce immediate regulatory change, but it has reopened a debate that F1 cannot afford to ignore indefinitely. The sport is built on the premise that every constructor on the grid is genuinely trying to beat every other constructor. When ownership structures, shared components, and institutional ties complicate that premise, the competition itself is diminished. Whether the FIA and FOM choose to tighten the rules or allow the current arrangements to continue, the pressure from voices like Brown’s will only grow as the stakes in Formula 1 continue to rise.