The story begins in 2025, when Renault decides to reduce its financial exposure at Alpine and transfers a portion of its shares to investment fund Otro Capital. Alpine F1 enters a transition phase: the team seeks outside investors to fund its technical development and medium-term ambitions.

This is where Mercedes enters the picture. The German manufacturer wants to acquire a stake in Alpine through Otro Capital, the team's minority shareholder. Mercedes' interest is twofold. First, to have a customer team in F1 after losing Racing Bulls, which opted for a Honda engine via Red Bull. Second, to strengthen its strategic positioning in a paddock increasingly dominated by cross-relationships between teams and manufacturers.

Why Renault must approve the deal

The main complication of the dossier is that Renault still holds 76% of Alpine's capital. Any transaction involving Otro Capital's shares requires the French group's approval. And recent signals suggest Renault is not opposed to the idea. The appointment of Guillaume Rosso, Renault's global head of mergers and acquisitions, to Alpine's board of directors as a replacement for the usual CFO is a powerful signal. When you put the M&A head in charge of a board, a transaction is in the air.

Zak Brown has never hidden his opposition to the principle of multi-team ownership in Formula 1. For years he has publicly criticised structures that allow the same actor to influence multiple teams simultaneously. The Alpine affair gives him the chance to move from words to action.

McLaren's CEO has sent the FIA a six-page letter detailing his objections to Mercedes' planned stake in Alpine. The document, excerpts from which were reported by Motorsport.com, develops several arguments.

• The sporting risk: A manufacturer that is a shareholder in a customer team could pass on technical information or priority engine developments, creating a sporting advantage that is difficult to monitor.
• The Red Bull precedent: The Red Bull/Racing Bulls model has been criticised for years over its driver swaps and shared resources. Brown does not want to see these structures multiply.
• Voting power over regulations: A manufacturer that is a shareholder in a customer team could potentially have two votes instead of one when voting on technical regulations, creating a power imbalance.
• The sporting spirit: Brown cites the risk of losing the "sporting spirit" of F1 if teams become commercial satellites of their engine suppliers rather than independent entities in competition.

Brown's position is understandable, even if it is not entirely selfless. McLaren has benefited from a Mercedes engine since 2015 and knows perfectly well that its engine supplier keeping a close eye on a direct rival team could create tensions in the relationship.

Mohammed Ben Sulayem, the FIA president, has confirmed that the global governing body of motorsport is getting involved in the dossier. The FIA must rule on the legality of such a stake, which is not explicitly prohibited under current regulations but raises unprecedented questions about the sport's governance.

The central question: how far can you go?

F1 regulations explicitly prohibit one team from owning another or a majority shareholder from controlling two teams. But they say nothing about a manufacturer taking a minority stake in a customer team. That is precisely the legal grey area Mercedes is trying to exploit. The FIA must now decide whether to let the deal pass, frame it with strict conditions, or ban it outright.

The precedent that changes everything

What makes the situation even more complex is that F1 has already tolerated similar structures in other motorsport disciplines. In endurance racing and junior formulae, manufacturers hold stakes in several teams without it creating regulatory problems. But F1 has always claimed a special status, with specific rules to protect competition.

Why is Gucci interested in F1 now?

Formula 1 has undergone a spectacular transformation of its audience since Drive to Survive arrived on Netflix in 2019. The series attracted a new generation of fans, younger, more international, with a stronger affinity for lifestyle and luxury brands. The profile of the F1 fan in 2026 matches Gucci's target audience exactly: urban, global, passionate about performance and premium products.

Ferrari has always embodied this intersection between F1 and luxury. But a Gucci/Alpine partnership would open up unprecedented territory: a French team with a strong lifestyle DNA, carried by one of the most powerful fashion houses in the world. It is a radically different positioning from the financial or technology sponsors that usually dominate the grid.

If all the pieces come together as the paddock is beginning to anticipate, Alpine 2027 would be a radically transformed team. A capital injection from Mercedes via Otro Capital. Tens of millions more through Gucci. And potentially privileged access to the resources and developments of one of the most dominant engine suppliers of the 2026 season.

Pierre Gasly and Franco Colapinto in an ideal position

In this new context, Alpine's current drivers have everything to gain. Pierre Gasly, who has shown signs of consistent progress this season, would find himself in a team with resources finally matching his talent. Franco Colapinto, the revelation of 2026, would benefit from a structure genuinely capable of delivering regular points rather than isolated lucky results.

The risks of the deal for sporting integrity

McLaren's concerns are not entirely unfounded. If Mercedes holds a stake in Alpine and supplies its engines, the boundary between engine supplier and team owner becomes blurred. Who decides on priority engine developments? On what criteria does Mercedes allocate its technical resources between its own cars and those of Alpine? These questions have no clear answer in the current regulations.