Formula 1’s future is not just about engines — ethics and political power must also be addressed. F1’s future debate goes beyond V8 engines as Zak Brown raises integrity concerns.

The Formula 1 of the future is being shaped at technical and ethical tables

Modern Formula 1 is facing a rather obvious contradiction. On one hand, the championship is actively debating its technical future, with discussions around the 2030 regulations, the possible return of V8 engines, lighter cars, and long-term industrial sustainability. On the other, the sport continues to drag along a series of political and structural ambiguities that have fuelled doubts, suspicion, and internal tension throughout the paddock for years.

Among the most sensitive issues is the question of so-called power blocs within Formula 1. It is a topic that periodically resurfaces, and in recent days Zak Brown has once again pushed it firmly back into the spotlight. The American executive has openly criticised the system of multi-team ownership structures and strategic alliances between teams, arguing that they inevitably distort the competitive balance of the championship.

Zak Brown is no stranger to this kind of battle. In previous years, he was one of the most outspoken supporters of Formula 1’s budget cap, becoming one of the strongest advocates for introducing a financial model inspired by American sports. The underlying goal was straightforward: reduce the financial dominance of the biggest organisations and create a more balanced, sustainable, and competitive Formula 1 environment.

Now, however, the McLaren CEO believes another major issue must be addressed: the increasingly close relationships between teams that are officially supposed to operate independently.

The Red Bull-Racing Bulls case and the question of sporting independence

The clearest example cited by Zak Brown is, unsurprisingly, the relationship between Red Bull and Racing Bulls. It is a situation that has sparked debate in the paddock for years and regularly returns to scrutiny whenever controversial on-track incidents occur.

According to Brown, the latest notable case involved Liam Lawson and Max Verstappen, with the New Zealand driver accused of favouring the reigning world champion during a race situation. Beyond the specifics of that single incident, what the McLaren boss fundamentally challenges is the principle of multi-team ownership itself: when two separate teams belong to the same corporate group, shared interests, strategies, and broader objectives become almost unavoidable.

From Brown’s perspective, the concern goes far beyond explicit or implied team orders. The issue runs much deeper and touches the political architecture of Formula 1 itself. When separate teams share engine suppliers, industrial partnerships, or even common ownership structures, it naturally creates influence blocs capable of affecting decision-making at the very tables where technical, sporting, and financial regulations are written. And this is where the discussion extends beyond the Red Bull example.

Mercedes-Alpine and the shifting political balance in Formula 1

Zak Brown also referenced the possibility of Mercedes acquiring a 24% stake in Alpine, currently held by Otro Capital. Even if such a move would not breach any regulations, the McLaren CEO believes it would create an unhealthy environment for the competitive balance of the sport.

The issue is undeniably complex. Modern Formula 1 has evolved into an industrial ecosystem where the links between manufacturers, investment funds, customer teams, and technology partners are becoming increasingly intertwined. That makes it harder than ever to define where a normal technical partnership ends and where a genuine power alliance begins.

Even something as standard as a power unit supply agreement can become a tool of political influence. Sharing engines — and McLaren itself is part of that dynamic — means sharing data, engineering philosophies, industrial goals, and often aligned regulatory interests. It is almost inevitable that when future rules are being discussed, strategic convergence will emerge naturally.

This is the broader warning Zak Brown is attempting to raise: Formula 1 risks evolving into a system increasingly shaped by cross-team alliances capable of steering the sport’s future far beyond pure on-track competition.

Of course, from a regulatory standpoint, none of this necessarily represents wrongdoing. If a specific ownership or industrial arrangement is permitted under FIA rules and commercial agreements, then it falls entirely within the boundaries of legality. However, as Zak Brown argues, the bigger issue concerns public perception and the competitive integrity of the championship.

A strong, credible, and globally attractive Formula 1 needs to eliminate grey areas wherever possible. Because even when there is no hard evidence of unfair conduct, suspicion alone can gradually erode fan trust.

As Formula 1 continues debating its technical future, perhaps the sport should approach these political and structural dynamics with the same level of urgency. Because the credibility of any championship depends not only on the quality of the cars or the spectacle on track, but also on the transparency of the system governing the competition.