Some days after Zak Brown fired a warning shot about how team co-ownership “compromises sporting fairness,” Mohammed Ben Sulayem has gone and tightened the screws. The FIA president didn’t just play referee from the stands; he questioned the motives behind any attempt to buy into a rival team’s ownership structure.
And here’s the part that matters tactically: it’s not the business model itself that worries the FIA so much as what it can do to governance da FIA when conflito de interesses starts getting mixed into decision-making. According to Ben Sulayem, the real flashpoint is poder de voto over regulamento esportivo and the risk of turning the grid into a voting bloc rather than a level playing field. Jogo Hoje, as we’ve been tracking, is watching this story because it touches how power actually moves in F1.
The words from Ben Sulayem and the FIA’s message
Ben Sulayem’s line is simple, but it lands with weight: he questioned whether buying a stake in another team is “for the right reason.” He’s basically asking, out loud, whether ownership is being used as a shield to stop others, or as a lever to influence how rules evolve.
He also framed it as a long-term brand issue. If F1 loses its competitive soul, the sport won’t just suffer on track; it could bleed support off it. That’s not a slogan. That’s governance thinking.
To put it in straight racing terms, the FIA is looking at co-ownership like a mechanic looking at a cracked chassis: maybe it holds today, but what happens when the load changes?
Why co-ownership became a sensitive topic in F1
Co-ownership isn’t new, but the sensitivity has spiked because modern F1 is a web. Teams don’t just race; they lobby, they negotiate, and they shape how technical and sporting frameworks develop. Once ownership overlaps, the optics of independence get blurry fast.
There’s also a practical question of influence. Even when entities are run separately, the flow of information and the alignment of commercial interests can create a grey zone. The FIA’s concern is that copropriedade can quietly tilt discussions away from pure competition and toward boardroom strategy.
In other words, it’s not only about who drives faster. It’s about who gets to steer the rules that define what “fast” even means.
- Potential conflito de interesses when ownership stakes overlap with rule-making influence
- Risk of unequal poder de voto during regulatory negotiations
- Pressure on the regulamento esportivo process when alliances harden
- Damage to the espírito esportivo narrative that keeps fans invested beyond the results
The Alpine case: who wants in and why
The Alpine angle is the cleanest example of why this debate has teeth. Flavio Briatore, tied to Alpine’s leadership, confirmed there are four potential buyers for the 24% stake currently held by Otro Capital.
Among those potential suitors, the names that matter are the ones that bring both capital and leverage. One group linked to Christian Horner is in the mix, and so is Mercedes. Importantly, Mercedes is already set to supply the unidade de potência to Alpine from 2026, which raises the stakes from “investment curiosity” to “strategic integration.”
Let that sink in: Mercedes could become a bigger piece of Alpine’s ownership at the same time it becomes a key supplier of the unidade de potência. That’s a double connection. It’s the kind of structure that can make other teams ask, not politely, what the FIA expects the competitive ecosystem to look like.
Ben Sulayem’s question is aimed right at that pressure point: “What’s the right reason?” If the motive is to block competitors or to gain influence over how rules get shaped, that’s a governance red flag.
Where the sporting risk and regulatory risk really live
Let’s be blunt. F1 isn’t a vacuum. It’s a power map. And when ownership crosses between teams, the FIA has to worry about how decisions get framed.
There are two main risks that Ben Sulayem is signaling, like a coach calling out coverages mid-session.
First, poder de voto. If ownership stakes translate into influence over regulatory discussions, you can end up with rule outcomes that don’t feel earned on track. That’s where the legitimacy problem starts.
Second, the regulatory process itself. If a team has commercial and strategic ties deeper than it admits publicly, the FIA has to make sure the regulamento esportivo remains responsive to performance and fairness, not to boardroom alignments.
Then there’s the broader brand risk. Ben Sulayem’s “sporting side” comment is the FIA reminding everyone that the category’s value depends on trust. Lose that trust and the sport’s long-term support base becomes a casualty.
What this could change behind the scenes
If the FIA pushes harder, expect a few knock-on effects across the paddock.
- More scrutiny on ownership structures and how they’re justified to the FIA, especially where voting influence could exist
- Greater pressure for clearer separation between teams’ governance, lobbying positions, and technical collaboration
- Potential tightening of how the FIA interprets conflito de interesses related to copropriedade
- More conservative deal-making, because the penalty for being perceived as gaming the system is reputational and regulatory
And with the Alpine/Mercedes setup, timing is everything. Mercedes supplying the unidade de potência from 2026 means the relationship is already operational. Add potential ownership, and the FIA will want absolute clarity on what’s commercial partnership versus what’s governance influence.
For fans, this lands right in the middle of the calendar rhythm too: F1 returns from 22 to 24 May for the Canadian GP, the fifth round of the 2026 season. That’s when the debate becomes more than headlines; it becomes a narrative that teams will carry into every tyre call and every parc fermé conversation.
O Veredito Jogo Hoje
Here’s our take: Ben Sulayem isn’t waving a flag for the sake of it. He’s reading the grid like a tactics board. Co-ownership might look like corporate efficiency, but in F1 it’s basically a shortcut to blurred incentives, and blurred incentives are poison for competitive credibility. If Mercedes and Alpine get too entangled while the FIA is already fighting to protect the integrity of decision-making, then the FIA won’t just “study if it’s allowed” anymore, it will build fences. That’s not drama. That’s governance doing its job, and we fully back the tougher line.
Perguntas Frequentes
Why does the FIA see risk in team co-ownership in F1?
The FIA is concerned that copropriedade can create conflito de interesses, shift poder de voto in governance discussions, and potentially affect how the regulamento esportivo is shaped. The FIA also worries about long-term damage to the espírito esportivo of the sport if fans perceive outcomes as influenced by boardroom power rather than pure competition.
Who is interested in buying part of Alpine?
Flavio Briatore confirmed there are four potential buyers for the 24% stake in Alpine currently owned by Otro Capital. Among the reported candidates are a group linked to Christian Horner and Mercedes, which will also supply the unidade de potência to Alpine from 2026.
Is team co-ownership allowed under F1 rules?
Co-ownership is not presented as an automatic ban, but the FIA is evaluating whether it is permitted and whether it aligns with the “right reasons” for ownership. Ben Sulayem’s comments indicate the FIA is actively assessing both the regulatory permissibility and the governance implications for governança da FIA.
