Zak Brown just admitted what everyone suspected all along. His years-long verbal warfare with Red Bull wasn’t personal vendetta or childish squabbling. It was calculated strategy designed to destabilise rivals whilst McLaren clawed their way back to championship contention. Because nothing says “professional sport” quite like deliberately feeding opponents “poison biscuits” then acting shocked when they choke on them, does it?
The McLaren CEO’s confirmed his public battles with Christian Horner and Red Bull were tactical moves in F1’s political chess game. Not accidents. Not emotional outbursts. Deliberate attempts to create doubt and disruption at rival operations. Whilst his own team rebuilt from years of mediocrity to constructors’ champions, Brown played mind games with everyone else.
Fair play for the honesty, actually. Most team bosses pretend F1’s all about engineering excellence and sporting integrity. Brown’s admitting the sport’s as political off-track as it is competitive on Sundays. That paddock warfare matters just as much as aerodynamic efficiency.
When Destabilising Rivals Becomes Part of Your Job Description
Brown delivered his confession to talkSPORT without a hint of embarrassment. Asked where McLaren’s main competition comes from, he answered everywhere. Drivers, teams, sponsors, employees. The battle extends far beyond Sunday afternoons.
“You’re fighting hard, which I think is one of the things that Drive to Survive shows so well. Is our sport, the competition off the field is as great as it is on the field, and it’s very political.” – Zak Brown
Then came the properly entertaining admission. McLaren actively tries to destabilise other teams. Not just build themselves stronger. Actively undermine rivals’ confidence and focus.
“We are trying to, in our sport, destabilise other teams. So we’re not just trying to make our team as strong as possible.” – Zak Brown
That’s refreshingly honest from someone who’s spent years publicly criticising Red Bull over everything from driver management to their sister team arrangement. Those weren’t random complaints. They were strategic strikes designed to create internal pressure and external scrutiny.
The “Poison Biscuits” Philosophy That Andrea Stella Named
McLaren’s team principal Andrea Stella apparently coined the perfect phrase for this approach. “Poison biscuits.” You offer rivals something that looks appealing on the surface but creates problems once they bite.
“Andrea, our team principal, calls it poison biscuits because you are trying… and you see it with the drivers, right? They talk trash to each other, and that’s all mental to try and kind of get in each other’s heads and we do that at every level.” – Zak Brown
Brown compares it to trash talk between drivers. Max Verstappen and Lando Norris weren’t just racing for the 2025 championship. They were playing psychological warfare through media comments and radio messages. That mental battle happens throughout the paddock at every level.
Team bosses attacking rivals’ strategies. Engineers questioning competitors’ legality. Marketing departments undermining opponents’ sponsor relationships. It’s all part of F1’s broader competitive landscape that exists beyond lap times and tyre strategies.
The Horner War That Was Always Strategic, Never Personal
Brown’s battles with former Red Bull team principal Christian Horner became paddock entertainment for years. The McLaren boss questioned Red Bull’s budget cap compliance, their driver development programme, and their corporate structure. Horner fired back with equal intensity.
Everyone assumed it was personal animosity between two strong personalities. Turns out it was just business.
When asked whether F1 misses Horner after his July departure, Brown delivered surprisingly diplomatic assessment. Called him an “unbelievable team boss” whilst noting things went sideways recently. But Brown expects his return because F1 thrives on diverse characters.
“I think sport is filled with characters, good guys, bad guys, all different. I think that’s what makes the sport fascinating.” – Zak Brown
That’s rather gracious from someone who spent years publicly feuding with the man. Perhaps easier to show respect once your rival’s no longer occupying the garage next door? Or maybe Brown genuinely appreciates that conflict and controversy make F1 more compelling for fans and sponsors alike?
When Winning Requires More Than Just Being Fast
Brown’s strategy worked brilliantly for McLaren. They won the 2025 constructors’ championship whilst Norris claimed his first drivers’ title by two points over Verstappen. That success came from engineering excellence, driver development, and strategic improvements throughout the season.
But Brown’s suggesting the off-track pressure played its part too. Red Bull faced constant scrutiny about their dominance, their driver decisions, and their corporate structure. Did that external noise contribute to their mid-season struggles? Perhaps.
McLaren’s approach raises uncomfortable questions about modern F1. Should team bosses actively try to destabilise rivals? Is psychological warfare legitimate competition or unprofessional behaviour? Does deliberately creating controversy serve the sport or damage its credibility?
Brown’s clearly comfortable with his tactics. He’s framing them as normal competitive behaviour in F1’s “very political” environment. Other teams might view them as inappropriate attacks designed to distract from on-track performance.
The Political Game That Never Stops
Brown’s right about one element. F1’s political warfare extends everywhere. Driver contracts. Technical regulations. Calendar decisions. Commercial agreements. Power unit development. Every aspect involves negotiation, manipulation, and strategic positioning.
Teams lobby the FIA about rule interpretations that disadvantage rivals. Manufacturers push for engine regulations that favour their architecture. Commercial departments fight for revenue distribution that benefits their position. It’s constant manoeuvring behind closed doors.
Brown’s unusual in openly discussing these tactics. Most team principals maintain public pretence that everyone operates with sporting integrity and mutual respect. Behind that facade sits exactly the kind of destabilisation efforts Brown’s describing.
Whether his honesty helps or harms McLaren remains to be seen. Rivals now know his public comments aren’t just opinions but calculated attempts at psychological warfare. That might make them less effective going forward. Or perhaps acknowledging the game changes nothing about how it’s played?
What This Means for 2026’s New Era
The 2026 season brings F1’s most radical regulatory changes in years. New power units. Active aerodynamics. Completely different cars. Everyone starts relatively equal when regulations reset.
Brown’s already positioning McLaren as favourites whilst questioning whether rivals can maintain competitiveness. That’s classic poison biscuit strategy. Declare yourself the team to beat, create expectation pressure on opponents, then exploit any signs of weakness.
Red Bull’s rebuilding under Laurent Mekies after Horner’s departure. Ferrari’s pursuing another championship challenge. Mercedes wants to prove their recent struggles were temporary. All three teams represent threats to McLaren’s new-found dominance.
Expect Brown to keep firing verbal shots at rivals throughout the off-season. Not because he’s personally antagonistic, but because he’s convinced destabilisation works. That political warfare delivers tangible competitive advantage when combined with strong on-track performance.
Whether other teams adopt similar aggressive approaches or maintain more diplomatic facades will shape 2026’s paddock dynamics. Brown’s essentially challenged everyone to match his willingness to fight publicly and privately for every possible advantage.
The question is whether admitting your strategy makes you clever or just gives rivals ammunition to use against you?
