AutodromeF1 Global Newsroom — May 22, 2026
Formula 1 is entering a structural reckoning over team ownership. Red Bull GmbH’s control of both Oracle Red Bull Racing and Visa Cash App Racing Bulls has moved from paddock complaint to formal governance issue, with the FIA publicly examining whether multi-team ownership should be permitted at all. At the same time, Red Bull is reportedly fielding unsolicited offers for Racing Bulls exceeding $2 billion, while insisting any sale would carry conditions that preserve its technical, commercial, and driver-development influence.
The result is a three-way standoff: F1’s regulators weighing competitive integrity, Red Bull protecting a 20-year investment, and potential buyers calculating whether a premium-priced team with strings attached is worth it.
- The Governance Flashpoint: Why Multi-Team Ownership Is Under Review
Regulatory Pressure Is Building
FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem told The Times that he does not personally feel multi-team ownership should be allowed, and the FIA is investigating whether it should be abolished f5ce. McLaren CEO Zak Brown formalized the opposition in a six-page letter to Ben Sulayem, arguing F1 must “prohibit any future co-ownership arrangements and begin the process of unwinding… team A/B relationships already in place” f5ce. Brown’s position: with 11 healthy teams in a cost cap era, F1 no longer needs ownership structures that raise conflict-of-interest questions.
What Rivals Actually Object To
The criticism is not abstract. Competitors point to personnel movement between the two Red Bull teams as evidence of an “unfair advantage.” F1 Oversteer reported that F1 rivals believe Red Bull’s latest hire from Racing Bulls highlights structural imbalance 3e81. The underlying fear: shared ownership enables resource sharing, political voting alignment, and driver pipeline control that a fully independent 10th team would not have.
F1’s Proposed Path Forward
The Race argues the cleanest solution is regulatory: outlaw any entity owning more than one team in the 2026 Concorde Agreement, while “encouraging” Red Bull to sell to a high-quality buyer rather than forcing it 9ae4. That distinction matters. Forced divestment creates legal exposure; a regulatory phase-out paired with market pressure is the path the FIA appears to be exploring.
- Red Bull’s Position: “We Saved This Team, and We’re Compliant”
Red Bull’s defense rests on two pillars: history and compliance.
The Minardi Argument
Red Bull leadership insists they should not be forced to sell Racing Bulls because they saved the entry when they bought Minardi and rebranded it Toro Rosso a1d1. The team has been a Red Bull asset for two decades, absorbing significant operating costs while serving as a driver development platform that produced Sebastian Vettel, Daniel Ricciardo, and Max Verstappen.
Regulatory Compliance Today
Red Bull contends it has made a “massive contribution” to F1 by funding two teams and that its operations are fully compliant with current regulations 3e81. There is no rule today prohibiting common ownership, only political momentum to change that for 2026 and beyond.
Reluctance to Sell
Despite approaches, Red Bull is said to be reluctant to sell Racing Bulls right now a1d1. The team is not a distressed asset. It is a functioning F1 constructor with a new identity, 2026 power unit implications, and strategic value to Red Bull Ford Powertrains.
- The Market Reality: $2 Billion Is the Floor, Not the Ceiling
Offers Are Arriving Monthly
Joe Saward reported in The Green Notebook that Red Bull recently turned down a $2.3 billion offer from investors for Racing Bulls. That bid followed a $2 billion offer in August, and Saward notes Red Bull is getting “about one offer a month”.
Why Valuations Have Exploded
Formula One Group revenue grew from $1.7 billion in 2017 to $3.9 billion in 2024. That financial boom, plus the cost cap and 11-team grid stability Brown referenced, has turned F1 entries into premium assets. Autosport Web separately claims it is “entirely possible” Red Bull could put Racing Bulls on the market for “billions of euros”. F1 Oversteer cites a £1.5bn minimum valuation figure.
Who the Buyers Might Be
Two names appear repeatedly: Chinese automakers BYD and Geely. Both are reportedly exploring F1 entry and attended the 2026 Chinese Grand Prix to meet F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali. Neither plans to build an F1 engine initially, which makes buying an existing team more attractive than starting a 12th entry. Geely also met Alpine executives at the 2025 Monaco Grand Prix, though Renault’s former CEO Luca de Meo was opposed to selling. Aston Martin has been floated, but finance expert Adam Williams told F1 Oversteer that BYD may be deterred by the price required.
- The Conditions That Make a Deal Difficult
While valuation is not the barrier, structure is. F1 Oversteer reports “constraints” a future owner would have to accept, which make finding a buyer difficult. Based on paddock reporting and the user’s summary, three categories dominate:
The PU Data Advantage
SI.com notes that Red Bull-Ford will have four cars’ worth of power unit data in 2026 via Red Bull Racing and Racing Bulls, versus two for Honda with Aston Martin and two for Audi. That is a tangible performance reason for Red Bull to keep Racing Bulls tied to its PU. A buyer accepting the engine condition is therefore buying into a system that benefits Red Bull’s works team.
Why Buyers Hesitate
If the buyer’s goal is full sporting independence, these terms create a permanent A/B perception. For a state-backed or OEM buyer like BYD or Geely, marketing value may outweigh pure independence. For a private equity group, the lack of control over technical direction and driver selection complicates the investment thesis.
- Competitive Integrity vs. Commercial Reality: The Core Tradeoffs
Sporting Integrity View
The argument Brown and others make: 10 teams should mean 10 independent competitors. Common ownership, even if legal, creates temptation to collude on political votes, development direction, or race strategy. Perception matters as much as provable collusion, especially in a cost-cap era where marginal gains are critical.
Red Bull’s Commercial View
Red Bull GmbH runs F1 teams as marketing platforms. Racing Bulls is both a brand activation and a R&D multiplier for Red Bull Ford Powertrains. Selling the team but keeping it on Red Bull PU and parts maintains marketing ROI while monetizing the entry’s equity value. Outright independence destroys that synergy.
F1’s Commercial View
Liberty Media and the FIA want 11 healthy, valuable entries. Forcing a sale at fire-sale prices damages the market. Encouraging a sale at $2B+ validates the franchise model. But allowing permanent A/B structures undermines the “most competitive era” narrative Brown cites.
- Scenarios for 2026-2030
Scenario A: Negotiated Sale with Carve-Outs
Red Bull agrees to sell, but with time-limited PU and technical supply deals—say, 3 years—after which the buyer gains full autonomy. Driver clause becomes “first right of refusal” rather than guarantee. This balances Red Bull’s short-term PU data needs with buyer independence. Likely buyer: OEM like Geely that wants F1 presence but can develop its own PU post-2029.
Scenario B: No Sale, Regulatory Grandfathering
FIA bans new multi-team ownership from 2026 but grandfathers Red Bull until 2030. Racing Bulls remains on grid, but political pressure forces more operational separation. Red Bull accepts reduced influence to avoid forced divestment.
Scenario C: Sale Falls Through, F1 Forces Split
If FIA/Brown coalition hardens language in Concorde Agreement and rival teams block benefits to “affiliated” teams, Red Bull may choose to sell rather than operate a handicapped asset. In that case, $2.3B offer becomes floor, but Red Bull loses PU customer and data advantage.
Scenario D: Red Bull Doubles Down
If 2026 Red Bull Ford PU is competitive and Verstappen stays, the strategic value of four data points may exceed any sale price. Red Bull could refuse all offers, weather political pressure, and argue competitive success justifies the structure. Risk: isolation if Mercedes/Alpine deal happens and creates precedent.
- Implications for Key Stakeholders
For Red Bull Ford Powertrains
Losing Racing Bulls means dropping from four to two PU data sources in 2026, putting it at parity with Honda and Audi instead of ahead. Ferrari and Mercedes would retain 6 and 8 data points respectively. That is a measurable engineering disadvantage in a new-regulations year.
For Driver Development
The Red Bull junior team has been the pathway for Verstappen, Vettel, Ricciardo, and now Isack Hadjar and Arvid Lindblad. If Racing Bulls is sold without a seat guarantee, Red Bull loses control of that pipeline. Tsunoda’s move to reserve in 2026 already shows the system tightening.
For Prospective Entrants
BYD and Geely face a choice: pay $2B+ for a team with conditions, or wait for 12th team slot that may never open. Buying Racing Bulls gets them immediate grid presence, 2026 regulatory compliance, and marketing, but at the cost of technical dependence.
For F1 Governance
The FIA must decide if “appearance of conflict” is enough to ban structures that are currently legal. The precedent affects not just Red Bull, but Mercedes’ reported interest in a 24% Alpine stake. Brown’s letter explicitly targets “ownership, strategic participation or any other equivalent form of control or influence”.
- What Would an “Independent” Racing Bulls Actually Look Like?
If sold with zero conditions, the team would need:
Power Unit Deal: Sign with Honda, Audi, Ferrari, or Mercedes. Honda is locked to Aston Martin; Audi is works-only; Ferrari supplies Haas and Cadillac; Mercedes supplies McLaren, Williams, Alpine. Capacity exists, but integration time is short for 2026.
Technical Staff: Either hire away from Red Bull Technology or build independently. Current aero and suspension ties would end.
Driver Strategy: No obligation to take Lindblad or other juniors. Could pursue pay drivers or free agents.
Commercial Identity: “Visa Cash App” title sponsor and Red Bull branding would presumably exit. New buyer rebrands, as with Aston Martin post-Racing Point.
That transition cost is why Red Bull’s conditions exist: they lower execution risk for a buyer, but preserve Red Bull’s ecosystem.
- Valuation Mechanics: Why $2.3B Is Plausible
Revenue Multiples
With F1 Group revenue at $3.9B in 2024 and 11 teams, average team central revenue is ∼$350M before sponsorship. Add sponsor, prize money, and cost cap of $135M, and teams are EBITDA positive. A 10-15x multiple on $150-200M EBITDA gets to $2B+.
Scarcity Premium
Only 10-11 entries exist. Cadillac’s 2026 entry required years of lobbying and an anti-dilution fee. Buying Racing Bulls bypasses that political process.
Strategic Premium
For BYD/Geely, F1 is global marketing. The cost of a 3-year title sponsorship with a midfield team can exceed $100M annually. At $300M for three years of exposure, a $2.3B perpetual asset with prize money and asset appreciation is rational.
- The Bottom Line: Three Irreconcilable Goals
F1/FIA Goal: Eliminate perceived conflicts, ensure 10-11 truly independent competitors.
Red Bull Goal: Monetize Racing Bulls’ equity without sacrificing PU development data, technical synergy, or driver pipeline.
Buyer Goal: Acquire a turnkey F1 team with upside, but with autonomy to set technical and sporting direction.
Those goals cannot all be satisfied simultaneously. The conditions you referenced are Red Bull’s attempt to thread the needle: sell the asset, keep the benefits.
Most Likely Near-Term Outcome
No sale in 2025-2026. The FIA continues its review but avoids forced divestment before the 2026 Concorde cycle. Red Bull keeps Racing Bulls to maximize Red Bull Ford Powertrains data in the critical first years of new PU rules. Offers continue monthly and the price rises. If political pressure peaks or PU performance disappoints, a sale with 3-year sunset clauses becomes the compromise in 2027-2028.
What to Watch Next
FIA’s 2026 Concorde draft language on ownership.
Whether Mercedes-Alpine 24% deal closes and how FIA treats it.
Red Bull Ford PU performance in 2026 pre-season testing; strong results increase Red Bull’s leverage to keep Racing Bulls.
BYD/Geely public statements at Shanghai or other GPs on F1 intent.
This is not just a team sale. It is a test case for how F1 balances private equity-level valuations, technical partnerships, and the sport’s definition of fair competition.