Bids for a stake in Formula 1’s Alpine reignite dual team duel
Rival offers highlight claims of unfair competition over buying into second teams
Once fierce rivals in the fight for F1 glory, former Red Bull boss Christian Horner and Mercedes chief Toto Wolff were recently locked in a new battle that has reignited an old political debate.
As Horner looks for a way back into F1 after his departure from Red Bull, he has bid for a 24 per cent stake in the Alpine team that US investment group Otro Capital is looking to offload. Otro bought its share from majority owner Renault for about $220mn at the end of 2023, valuing Alpine at around $900mn. With team valuations now estimated at $2.5-$3bn, it appears a suitable time to cash out.
But Horner was not the only party looking to buy into Alpine, with Wolff involved in an offer from his Mercedes operation to secure a stake. Mercedes has a new engine supply partnership with Alpine and a financial interest would bring security in the alliance and the potential for longer-term returns.
Horner’s offer is being evaluated by Renault, which is understood to have a veto until September on anyone taking over the Otro Capital shares. But Mercedes last week pulled out of talks, because of widely differing estimates of Alpine’s value.
Horner’s involvement roused interest as it would give him a route back to F1 after leaving Red Bull under a severance deal last September, following his dismissal as team principal in July. But it was the potential for Mercedes to take part-ownership that piqued greater attention among rivals — in particular McLaren chief executive Zak Brown, who has long opposed such alliances.
Brown has spoken out about what he sees as unfair benefits for collaborative teams, with his ire directed at Red Bull, which owns both the Red Bull Racing and Racing Bulls operations.
Red Bull’s dual team approach began in 2005 when the energy drinks group purchased struggling Minardi and rebranded it Toro Rosso, investing heavily to make the acquisition its junior team. While it underwent identity changes, as AlphaTauri and now Racing Bulls, the team has consistently served as a proving ground for many of Red Bull’s stars, including champions Sebastian Vettel and Max Verstappen.
The potential for the Mercedes move with Alpine reignited Brown’s concerns about erosion of F1’s integrity.
The McLaren boss has spoken out in press conferences and last month wrote a long letter urging action to Mohammed Ben Sulayem, president of the FIA, motorsport’s governing body. Brown argued that with F1 in a healthy financial position, ownership of multiple squads was no longer fit for purpose.
The letter said alliances were unfair on independent rivals because of sporting, political and strategic advantages. Brown noted that shared resources such as wind tunnels and software can provide benefits when used across teams.
There are also mismatches of opportunity relating to the movement of personnel, Brown claimed. He said McLaren had to wait nine months and pay compensation for chief designer Rob Marshall to move from Red Bull in 2024, while last year Laurent Mekies switched from being team boss at Racing Bulls to Red Bull in a matter of days.
Brown also noted examples where he believes sporting integrity was undermined by teams working in alliance. He cited Daniel Ricciardo taking the fastest lap for Racing Bulls at the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix. Ricciardo got no benefit from doing so (at the time, only drivers in the top 10 positions were eligible for a fastest lap point and he was running in 18th). But by taking the fastest lap, he denied title-chasing McLaren a point. Racing Bulls denied wrongdoing, saying that a late stop for fresh tyres which aided the lap was a reward for his final race — he was dropped that weekend.
The letter — seen by the FT — also cited Racing Bulls’ Liam Lawson being ordered to move aside for Red Bull’s Max Verstappen in Miami. Lawson was surprised but said on behalf of the team that it was a mistake, not collusion.
Brown wrote: “There is a real concern that the sport risks taking a step backwards in terms of integrity and fairness, at a time when the regulatory framework has been designed . . . to move in the opposite direction.”
At the Miami Grand Prix in May, Ben Sulayem told media: “I do believe that owning two [teams] is not the right way — this is my personal point of view — but we are looking into that because it’s a complicated area.”
Mercedes had been adamant that Brown’s arguments did not apply to the type of involvement it wanted in Alpine, as this was purely financial.
Current regulations mean engine supply deals are not lucrative, with the $25mn price cap for customers in contrast to a power unit budget for manufacturers capped at $190mn. A stake in a customer team will allow a return on investment that is not possible through a normal customer transaction.
Multi-team ownership is not unique to F1. Other sporting competitions — such as football’s Uefa Champions League — have rules that allow shared financial backers but demand strict operational, financial and sporting independence. Mercedes had argued that its interest in Alpine was already along such lines and denied any suggestion it wanted to create a junior squad that could harm rival independents.
Whatever happens with Alpine, it is unlikely that we have heard the last of Brown’s crusade to change F1’s rules.