The FIA is examining whether to permit multi-team ownership in Formula 1, a regulatory reversal that would end decades of restrictions designed to preserve competitive independence. The review follows reports linking Mercedes to a minority stake in another constructor and a formal letter from McLaren CEO Zak Brown to FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem calling for rules reform. Ben Sulayem told reporters this week he remains "divided" on the matter, a notable departure from the hard-line position the governing body has maintained since the 2009 elimination of customer chassis programs.

The current rulebook prohibits any entity from holding more than a ten percent stake in multiple teams, a ceiling designed to prevent strategic coordination that would undermine the grid's competitive legitimacy. Mercedes' reported interest in a second team—details remain unconfirmed, but paddock talk centers on either a struggling midfield constructor or a new franchise bid tied to Andretti's stalled entry—would require either creative structuring to stay below the threshold or an outright rule change. McLaren's Brown, whose team is part-owned by Bahrain's sovereign wealth fund and operates with one of the sport's more complex cap tables, has positioned himself as the public advocate for liberalization. His letter to Ben Sulayem argues that modern F1's $1 billion franchise valuations and the sport's push for a potential twelfth team make the old ownership walls unworkable.

The timing matters. Liberty Media has spent seven years inflating team values through cost caps, new commercial terms, and a manufactured scarcity of grid slots. The anti-dilution payment required for an eleventh team now sits at $450 million, a figure that makes traditional motorsport investors—engine suppliers, family offices, regional sponsors—less viable than the sovereign funds and billionaire portfolios already circling the paddock. If Mercedes takes a stake in a second team, the competitive concern shifts from on-track collusion to capital allocation: does the factory squad's $450 million annual budget get subsidized by returns from a second franchise operated at the $135 million cost cap ceiling? Does the junior team become a de facto talent incubator, a sponsorship vehicle, or a hedge against regulatory changes that might disadvantage the parent?

Ben Sulayem's hesitation is less about competitive philosophy than it is about losing leverage. The FIA has already ceded commercial control to Liberty, regulatory rhythm to the teams' veto-heavy Concorde Agreement, and calendar authority to the promoters willing to pay $50 million hosting fees. Allowing multi-team ownership formalizes what the sport's financial structure has already implied: that Formula 1 is now a portfolio asset class, not a motorsport meritocracy. McLaren's push for reform is less about competitive fairness and more about clearing the path for its own investors—Bahrain's Mumtalakat and MSP Sports Capital—to participate in future team acquisitions without triggering divestment clauses. Brown's letter effectively asks the FIA to ratify the sport's transformation into a closed league where ownership synergies matter more than constructor independence.

The immediate question is whether Ben Sulayem can hold a majority of the FIA World Motor Sport Council, the body that would need to approve any ownership rule change. The teams are split. Red Bull and Ferrari have historically opposed multi-team structures, viewing them as dilutive to constructor prestige. Alpine, Haas, and Williams—teams with unstable ownership or challenging financial models—may see minority stakes from established players as survival capital. Andretti's stalled entry adds pressure from the opposite direction: if the FIA blocks a pure racing bid but permits Mercedes to acquire influence over a second team, the political contradiction becomes difficult to defend in any forum that values competitive access over financial optimization.

Watch for three sequences. First, whether Mercedes formalizes any minority stake before the FIA's June council meeting, forcing the regulatory question into the open. Second, whether other manufacturers—Honda returns in 2026, Audi enters the same year—signal interest in portfolio strategies that would require rule changes. Third, whether Liberty Media, which has remained publicly neutral, weighs in with data showing that multi-team ownership increases franchise values across the grid, a pitch designed to move reluctant constructors into the yes column.

The FIA's ownership rules were written when teams were racing operations funded by tobacco and oil money. Now they are billion-dollar assets competing for the same sovereign wealth allocations as Premier League clubs and NBA franchises. Ben Sulayem's division is less a policy debate and more a rearguard action against a market structure that has already moved past him.