Red Bull owning two F1 teams is legal - but it shouldn't be

Red Bull has owned two F1 teams since it purchased Minardi ahead of the 2006 season, just one year after the Milton Keynes squad made its own grand prix debut.

Whilst the main outfit has grown into perennial F1 champions, the sister team has transitioned from Toro Rosso to AlphaTauri to its current guise, RB.

Through that time, the Faenza-based operation has supported Red Bull's aims, dutifully serving its goals as an F1 breeding ground for the drivers who would eventually help carry Red Bull to its six constructors' titles and counting.

Although no longer internally considered merely Red Bull's junior team - which is very much still a matter for debate externally - over the years, the relationship, and its utilisation, has developed into something more than that, with drivers centrally contracted and numerous mid-season moves being a prime example of the lack of borders between the teams.

RB's off-season rebrand effectively spelled the end of its prior arrangement and in the months preceding that change, then-AlphaTauri increased the number of allowed parts it was purchasing from Red Bull - a move that played a part in helping to elevate AlphaTauri from last to eighth over the final rounds of the 2023 F1 constructors' championship.

In short, there was to be greater uniformity between the teams. Not illegal within the rules, it is important to note, and no different to supplier-customer relationships elsewhere in the F1 paddock - but that is an issue for a different day.

Despite RB now being considered a 'B team', Red Bull has always insisted the single-ownership structure is not insidious and Christian Horner has previously distanced the arrangement from past controversies, like the 'Pink Mercedes' saga from 2020.

September's Singapore Grand Prix, however, underscored a somewhat more sinister side to Red Bull and RB being centrally owned.

In the closing stages of the race in Marina Bay, with Lando Norris en route to victory with the fastest lap, RB brought Daniel Ricciardo in for fresh tyres, despite the Australian not needing to stop again.

The 35-year-old, on likely his final lap as an F1 driver, stole the bonus point away from his former team-mate, even though he did not stand to gain that point himself, due to running outside the top 10.

So why would RB make that call? And, crucially, did RB actually make that call itself?

Two perfectly valid questions. The decision undeniably advantaged Max Verstappen and Red Bull in the championship races.

Norris' deficit from the Dutchman ended up being 52 points, not one fewer, and Red Bull ultimately ended the weekend 41 points behind McLaren, not 42.

RB, on the other hand, gained nothing. After the race, team principal Laurent Mekies essentially claimed it provided Ricciardo the opportunity to end his time with the Faenza squad in style.

Horner, meanwhile, argued that the eight-time grand prix winner will have secured a financial bonus for taking the fastest lap, even if it was without the accompanying point.

He also maintained the call was made independently by RB and there was no outside involvement from Red Bull in the decision.

Unsurprisingly, McLaren was somewhat miffed by the episode. CEO Zak Brown suggested the papaya outfit would "ask questions" following the incident.

Ahead of the United States Grand Prix, mere weeks later, the World Motor Sport Council conspicuously voted to remove the bonus point for fastest lap from the 2025 F1 season onwards. It begs the question: how much did the events in Singapore influence that decision?

Conflict of interest

There is nothing in the F1 regulations that prohibits an entity owning two teams, obviously, but there is without doubt a conflict of interest there.

Whether RB made the call under direct external instruction or not is almost besides the point. Whoever made the decision would have known the benefit to Verstappen and Red Bull, and that is the issue.

Not to mention, those involved would have been well aware of how it would be perceived up and down the F1 paddock.

There have been prior incidents too, such as Pierre Gasly diving out the way of Verstappen during the 2021 Qatar Grand Prix to the extent he went off track.

And this is not solely about Red Bull, either. There is often too much cross-over between teams. The aforementioned 'Pink Mercedes' episode underlines the issue well.

However, no other teams are owned by the same one company or group of shareholders.

The advantages can be profound. This will be non-more evident than if either championship is won by a single point for Verstappen or Red Bull, respectively.

One interpretation of the recent removal of the bonus point for fastest lap is that whilst the change may go some way to allaying fears, it tackles one specific, recently-unearthed issue, but the broader problem.

And even still, if that, admittedly unlikely, scenario does come to pass, F1 will find itself in a considerably awkward position and the issue could take on a whole new lease of life.