Zak Brown strongly denied Peter Bayer’s claim that Formula 1 teams are not financially viable, while also criticizing Red Bull’s ownership of two constructors.
Brown has been outspoken about the equity of one organization having control over multiple teams, especially with both Red Bull and RB falling under the Red Bull GmbH umbrella. He argues that this type of ownership can sway voting on technical regulations and believes that Formula 1 has progressed beyond such arrangements with the introduction of a cost cap.
Prior to the Bahrain Grand Prix, Brown discussed the issue and emphasized his appreciation for Red Bull’s positive contributions to Formula 1. However, he believes that rule changes are necessary in light of the sport’s budget cap era.
Drawing a comparison to football, Brown raised concerns about the independence of teams under common ownership. He pointed out instances where decisions regarding drivers and components seemed to be influenced by shared interests.
Brown was particularly frustrated by Bayer’s alleged statement that no team is profitable, which he disputed by providing evidence of profitable teams registered with Companies House in the UK. He attributes his own team’s journey from financial struggles to profitability to a combination of the budget cap and diligent commercial efforts.
Brown argued for a fair playing field in Formula 1, likening it to other sports where each game starts with equal opportunities regardless of team status. He called for rule revisions by 2026 to address these concerns and stressed the importance of fairness in the sport’s evolution.
In conclusion, Brown strongly disagrees with the idea that Formula 1 teams are not profitable and advocates for rule changes to ensure fairness and independence among teams, particularly in the context of multiple-team ownership.