Racing Bulls chief has just provided the perfect reason why Red Bull shouldn’t own a second F1 team

Racing Bulls chief explains why Red Bull owning a second F1 team shouldn’t continue

 

The ongoing debate about whether Red Bull should own two Formula 1 teams flared up again this week after Racing Bulls team principal Alan Permane addressed the controversy directly, offering what some are calling a compelling reason why such dual ownership might not be healthy for the sport.

Red Bull’s unique position in F1 stems from its acquisition of the Minardi team in 2006. That team — operating under various names such as Toro Rosso and AlphaTauri before its latest rebranding to Racing Bulls — has served as Red Bull’s junior or “sister” squad for nearly two decades. Today it competes on the grid with its own constructors’ entry but remains under the wider Red Bull corporate umbrella.

A controversial setup

Many rivals have long questioned the fairness of this arrangement. Unlike any other major sport, where independent teams go head-to-head without shared ownership, F1 allows Red Bull to field four cars across two teams — a point critics see as an unequal advantage. Red Bull counters that its two teams are separate legal entities with distinct budgets and technical departments, and that this setup has been within the regulations since the FIA codified technical independence rules.

But Permane’s recent comments dig deeper than legality. While he didn’t call for an immediate sale of Racing Bulls, his rationale highlighted a concern around perception and sporting integrity. Many within the paddock feel that having a parent company controlling two competitors creates a skewed dynamic that undermines F1’s ethos of sporting fairness. The key fear: strategic decisions by a sister team could inadvertently favour the main Red Bull Racing outfit — even if all actions are within the rulebook.

Indeed, past incidents have stoked these concerns. Independent analyses of race strategy decisions and driver swaps between the two teams periodically fuel speculation that the interconnected ownership structure confers competitive subtle benefits, whether through driver pipeline movement or shared corporate strategy.

The broader paddock’s stance

Red Bull isn’t the only team with reservations. Rival bosses — most notably McLaren’s Zak Brown — have publicly argued that co-ownership of two teams is at odds with what F1 should represent in the cost-cap era. Brown has pointed out that no other major sport allows one company to own two competing professional teams at the highest level, citing examples from football’s Champions League where even shared ownership entities must prove independence.

The argument isn’t purely theoretical. In recent seasons, the sister team has outperformed Red Bull’s own second driver — a scenario that didn’t traditionally happen under the AlphaTauri identity — raising questions about talent distribution, resource allocation, and how the competitive balance is managed under the broader Red Bull umbrella.

What might change?

While Permane’s remarks stop short of calling for an exit from F1, they underscore a growing unease within the sport’s ecosystem about how dual ownership fits into the vision of a 10-team grid striving for fairness and competition. As the FIA and Liberty Media continue to refine the sporting and technical regulations, the debate around whether the status quo remains tenable is only likely to intensify.

Whether F1 eventually amends its rules to limit or prohibit such arrangements, or whether Red Bull chooses to restructure its involvement, one thing is clear: the conversation Permane has reignited won’t disappear quietly.