Zak Brown vehemently denied Peter Bayer’s assertion that Formula 1 teams are not financially viable, while also criticizing Red Bull’s ownership of two constructors.
Brown has been emphatic about the fairness of an organization having control over multiple teams, especially with Red Bull and RB being part of the Red Bull GmbH umbrella. He argues that this type of ownership can influence voting on technical regulations and believes that Formula 1 has evolved beyond these 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 era of cost caps in the sport.
Drawing a comparison to football, Brown raised concerns about the independence of teams under common ownership. He highlighted cases where decisions regarding drivers and components seemed to be influenced by shared interests.
Brown was particularly frustrated with Bayer’s alleged claim that no team is profitable, which he disputed by providing evidence of profitable teams registered at the Companies House in the UK. He attributes his own team’s journey, which faced financial difficulties, to the combination of cost caps and diligent commercial efforts.
Brown argued for a level playing field in Formula 1, comparing it to other sports where each game starts with equal opportunities regardless of the team’s status. He called for rule revisions by 2026 to address these concerns and emphasized 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, especially in the context of owning multiple teams.
