Zak Brown launches ‘sporting fairness’ attack over F1 A and B teams
Originally published by Motorsportweek
McLaren CEO Zak Brown has launched an attack on the continuation of A and B teams in Formula 1, believing they hold an unfair competitive advantage.
A/B teams and the debate they cause are not a new topic in F1, with customer teams and close relationships commonplace in the modern era.
Red Bull and Racing Bulls are owned by the same parent company Red Bull GmbH, leading to previous concerns from Brown over the information shared between the outfits.
Haas and Ferrari also have a close relationship, with Haas receiving components from the Scuderia, including gearboxes, rear suspension, and hydraulic and electronic systems.
Brown has raised concerns again that the increase in technology transfers in recent seasons could lead to fans becoming disenfranchised.
“I think A/B teams, we need to get away from as much as possible, as quickly as possible,” he said to select media, including Motorsport Week.
“I think co-ownership, which we have of one group now — and I understand how that came about and why it came about — but today’s day and age, that’s permitted in almost, if not all, major forms of sport.”
“I think it runs a real high risk of compromising the integrity of sporting fairness, which comes back to the earlier question, what would turn fans off, is if they don’t feel like there are 11 independent racing teams,” Brown added, making reference to being questioned on whether the new F1 regulations risk alienating fans.”
Zak Brown highlights IP concerns
Elaborating on his concerns, Brown highlighted several scandals from previous seasons that forced rule changes as a result of their impact.
“I’ve been vocal about it from day one; we’ve seen it play out on track in a sporting way; Daniel Ricciardo taking the fastest lap point away from us to help the other team [in Singapore in 2024]” he said.
“We’ve seen IP violations on the Aston Martin/Racing Point on break ducts, 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.
“So when you see other teams that move from one to the other, and then also 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, and we know with IP there’s a lot in your head with that.”
He then used a Premier League football example to explain concerns, and what the sport risks invoking if changes are not made.
“Can you imagine a Premier League game where you’ve got two teams owned by the same group – one’s going to get relegated if they lose, and the other can afford to lose?” he stipulated.
“That’s what we run the risk of. 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.”
Brown however was quick to confirm that no one team is the subject of his concerns, confirming it applies across the paddock.
”It applies to anybody and everybody. So A/B teams, co-ownership, regardless of who it is, I frown upon it.
“I don’t think it’s healthy for the sport. But it’s not personal or towards any one team or individual.”
Brown’s attack comes at a time when Mercedes is attempting to close a deal that would see it take a 24 per cent share of Alpine, increasing the current title favourites influence considerably.
A long time critic of A/B teams, his warning may fall on deaf ears.