The comments from FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem regarding Mercedes’ potential interest in acquiring a stake in Alpine have brought back to the centre of Formula 1 a controversial topic that continues to divide opinion: is it acceptable for a manufacturer to have direct or indirect influence over more than one team?
According to recent reports, Mercedes is interested in purchasing the stake in Alpine currently held by Otro Capital. The deal would formally involve a minority shareholding (with Christian Horner also reportedly interested), but it inevitably reopens the debate around so-called B-teams and satellite structures that could distort the sporting balance of the championship.
Ben Sulayem, speaking to The Times, was very clear on the matter:
“I believe owning two teams is not the right path. This is my personal opinion, but we are analysing the situation because it is a complicated area. If we lose the sporting spirit, we will also lose support for this sport.”
These comments come at a sensitive time, as in recent years the issue has been repeatedly raised by McLaren CEO Zak Brown, who has often criticised the relationship between Red Bull and Racing Bulls. According to Brown, having two closely connected teams on the same grid inevitably creates grey areas, both politically and on track.
And it is difficult to argue against that after what was seen at the latest Miami Grand Prix. Following Max Verstappen’s early spin, the Red Bull driver found himself behind the Racing Bulls car of Liam Lawson. Attempting an overtake at Turn 11, Verstappen attacked very aggressively, going wide alongside the New Zealander. Lawson managed to stay ahead, believing he had legitimately kept the position.
However, the Racing Bulls pit wall immediately instructed him to let Verstappen through.
“He hit my sidepod, I don’t understand,” Lawson complained over team radio before slowing down and giving the position back.
This is exactly the key point: it is not only about whether the decision was correct or not. It is about perception. Because when a team instructs its driver to yield to a car belonging to the same corporate group, doubts about conflict of interest become unavoidable.
Interestingly, FIA overtaking guidelines appeared to support Lawson’s case. Max Verstappen was not sufficiently alongside at the apex, and the move looked more like a divebomb than a completed overtake. Under normal circumstances, the team would likely have left it to the stewards. Instead, Racing Bulls immediately ordered the position to be returned.
But the problem does not end with a single racing incident. Operating two teams means applying a single business logic across four cars, four drivers, two sporting organisations, and a vastly larger volume of data. In Formula 1, where testing is heavily restricted, every kilometre on track carries enormous technical, industrial, and strategic value.
Red Bull, for example, has been able to transition into a power unit manufacturer knowing it could rely on a second team to run its engine. This does not only guarantee a customer, but also multiplies real-world data collection opportunities: engine maps, reliability testing, cooling performance, chassis integration, ERS management, gearbox behaviour, and simulation correlation with on-track performance.
The same logic applies to all transferable or shared components within regulatory limits. Gearboxes, suspension elements, hydraulic systems, electronic systems, and power unit-related parts can all generate indirect competitive advantages, because each solution used across multiple cars produces more data, more feedback, and more development opportunities. This is not a minor detail: in the budget cap era and with reduced testing, the quantity and quality of available data can define competitiveness. Just look at the difficulties faced by a giant like Honda, which relies only on Aston Martin for real-world data collection to solve its power unit issues.
Some may argue that Ferrari and Mercedes also supply power units and components to other teams. That is true. But the distinction is fundamental: in those cases, customer teams choose a technical supply agreement on the open market, paying for an engine and permitted components under the regulations. The manufacturer is not buying or maintaining a second team to secure more cars on track, more data, and more political influence.
The difference is not merely formal. A customer remains a customer, with its own interests, independent ownership, and sporting autonomy. A second team controlled or strongly influenced by the same group, however, risks becoming part of a coordinated system.
This is precisely the issue with satellite teams: even in the absence of direct orders, even when everything operates within the formal regulations, there is always the suspicion that one team may act in the interest of the “main team”. A toxic perception when it comes to Formula 1 sporting credibility.
That is why Ben Sulayem’s remarks deserve attention. Modern Formula 1 is already extremely complex from a political, economic, and technical standpoint. Allowing one manufacturer to influence two structures risks expanding grey areas even further: regulatory votes, driver management, strategic alliances, data collection, and even on-track incidents could all be indirectly affected.
Technical collaboration between manufacturers and customers is one thing. Sporting dependency is something entirely different.
Leave a Reply