谁真正拥有每支F1车队？
文章探讨了F1车队估值飙升背景下各车队的实际所有权结构，指出如今所有权形式远比过去复杂，并以阿斯顿·马丁、法拉利和红牛为例进行了分析。
谁正在从F1车队估值的巨大飙升中获益？在撰写我最近那篇关于为何车队估值攀升如此之快的文章时，我意识到自己并不确切知道每支车队的答案。
出于对估值的兴趣，加上围绕凯迪拉克所有权的持续报道以及最近关于阿斯顿·马丁持股的披露，我想我应该深入探究一番，查看每支车队可获得的持股信息。
“可获得的”在这里是个关键词。根据所有权结构的类型及其注册地的不同，信息的强度和深度也有所差异。
对于“谁真正拥有每支F1车队”这个看似简单的问题，答案实际上非常复杂。在深入挖掘并思考我们是如何走到这一步之后，人们想要拥有一支F1车队部分所有权的原因有三个关键点。这些原因确实有重叠，但自弗兰克·威廉姆斯、科林·查普曼、布鲁斯·迈凯伦和肯·泰瑞尔那个唯一目标就是获胜的“所有者/运营者”模式以来，无疑已经发生了变化。
1）你拥有一支车队，是因为你想去赛车。
2）你拥有一支车队，是因为赛车有助于另一项业务赚钱。
3）你（部分）拥有一支车队，是因为你相信车队本身会为你赚钱。
弗兰克·威廉姆斯在很大程度上代表了第一种。贝纳通和红牛是第二种的例子。Arctos、Otro和其他机构投资者的到来代表了第三种。
但我们距离一个100%由机构投资者拥有的发车格还差得很远，那将代表第三种原因。而这正是细节如此有趣的原因。
如今的车队阵容越来越多地由混合体组成。制造商与私人资本并存，亿万富翁控制者与机构投资者并存，主权财富与企业家并存，甚至高级员工也持有股权。
一旦你深入研究这些结构，车队的一些战略决策和文化差异就变得合理了。吉恩·哈斯是发车格上唯一剩下的100%所有者/运营者。哈斯也是唯一一支运营成本低于预算帽的车队。这或许并非巧合。
由于哈斯是最容易解释的，我将从复杂程度标尺的另一端开始。
阿斯顿·马丁：劳伦斯·斯特罗尔控制它，但许多其他人也拥有它的一部分
斯特罗尔并非简单地“拥有”阿斯顿·马丁F1车队，而阿斯顿·马丁拉贡达——那家名字挂在门上的上市跑车公司——也不拥有这支F1车队。
F1业务最终归属于AMR GP Holdings Limited，这可能是发车格上F1所有权变得多么复杂的最佳例证。
PlanetF1最近对与阿德里安·纽维持股相关的文件进行了详细挖掘，并计算出与斯特罗尔相关的权益约占车队经济所有权的三分之一。
它还强调了更重要的一点：斯特罗尔不需要拥有接近多数的股份就能控制它。
英国公司注册处目前记录显示，斯特罗尔领导的财团控股工具比赛 Point UK Holdings Limited持有AMR GP Holdings超过25%但不超过50%的股份。但它拥有75%或以上的投票权以及任命或罢免董事的权利。
最新的公司章程将比赛 Point UK Holdings定义为“控股股东”，只要它持有公司至少15%的股份。
这一地位带来了重大的治理权利，包括关于任命董事长、董事以及董事会会议所需法定人数的权利。
因此，斯特罗尔实现了现代F1中越来越重要的事情：他为公司引入了大量他人的资本，并兑现了其价值非凡增长的一部分，却没有放弃控制权。
Arctos Partners，全球最大的专业体育投资公司之一，是重要股东。HPS Investment Partners是另一个。沙特阿拉伯的公共投资基金持有权益。纽约喷气机队老板伍迪·约翰逊通过特拉华州实体Green Racer LLC加入。阿德里安·纽维通过特殊类别的股份持有股权权益。还有管理层权益。
PlanetF1的分析将纽维的权益定为约4.7%，比赛 Point UK本身约为27%，与斯特罗尔相关的总权益约为33%。
法拉利：公开拥有，家族影响
法拉利本应也很简单。
它不像阿斯顿·马丁那样是一个单独分拆的F1运营实体。法拉利车队位于法拉利公司内部。
而法拉利是一家上市公司，所以从某种意义上说，它有成千上万的股东。
但这并不意味着在控制权方面所有法拉利股份都是平等的。
截至2026年2月，阿涅利家族的投资公司Exor持有法拉利21.33%的普通股。
得益于法拉利的忠诚投票结构，这些股份代表了32.32%的投票权。
皮耶罗·法拉利的信托基金另外持有10.67%的经济权益，代表16.17%的投票权。
将两者相加，代表约32%经济所有权的权益掌握了约48.5%的投票权。
所以说法拉利是“公开拥有”是正确的。
说法拉利是一家阿涅利/Exor和法拉利家族权益对其保留巨大影响力的公司也是正确的。
这是经济所有权与控制权之间差异的一个很好的例子。
法拉利还有另一个重要区别。如果有人说法拉利F1车队价值50亿美元，并不存在一个包含法拉利车队的独立公司可以简单地以这个数字被收购。
法拉利的F1车队是更广泛法拉利业务的一部分。
这使得将法拉利F1的隐含估值与阿斯顿·马丁或阿尔派的交易进行比较，比大多数估值表所承认的更像是在比较苹果和橘子。
红牛和赛车公牛：两支F1车队，一个战略目的
最简单地说，红牛车队和赛车公牛最终都是红牛帝国的一部分。
英文原文
Who is benefiting from the huge spike in Formula 1 team valuations? While writing my recent piece on why team valuations are ramping up so fast, I realised that I didn’t definitively know that answer for each team.
With the interest in valuations, plus the ongoing story around Cadillac’s ownership and recent revelations around Aston Martin shareholding I thought I’d go down some rabbit holes and look into available shareholding information for each team.
Available is a key word here. Depending on the type of ownership structure and where it is domiciled the strength and depth of the information differs.
The answer to the seemingly simple question of ‘Who actually owns each F1 team’ is actually very complex. Having dug deep and thought about how we got here, there are three key reasons for people to want to own part of an F1 team. Those reasons do overlap but have undeniably shifted since the ‘owner/operator’ models of Frank Williams, Colin Chapman, Bruce McLaren and Ken Tyrrell when the only target was to win.
1) You own one because you want to go racing.
2) You own one because going racing helps another business make money.
3) You (part) own one because you believe the racing team itself will make you money.
Frank Williams largely represented the first. Benetton and Red Bull are examples of the second. The arrival of Arctos, Otro and other institutional investors represents the third.
But we are not anywhere close to a grid with a 100% ownership by institutional investors, representing reason 3. And that’s what makes the detail so interesting.
Today's grid is increasingly populated by hybrids. Manufacturers alongside private capital, billionaire controllers alongside institutional investors, sovereign wealth alongside entrepreneurs, even senior employees owning equity.
Once you dig into these structures some of the strategic decisions of the teams and cultural differences make sense. Gene Haas is the only 100% owner/operator left on the grid. Haas are also the only team operating below the cost cap. This is perhaps not a surprise correlation.
With Haas being the simplest to explain, I’ll start at the opposite end of the complexity scale.
Aston Martin: Lawrence Stroll controls it, but plenty of others own part of it
Stroll doesn't simply 'own' Aston Martin F1, and Aston Martin Lagonda, the listed road car company whose name is above the door, doesn't own the F1 team either.
The F1 business ultimately sits within AMR GP Holdings Limited and this is probably the best example on the grid of how sophisticated F1 ownership has become.
PlanetF1 recently did some detailed digging into filings relating to Adrian Newey's shareholding and calculated that Stroll-related interests account for around a third of the economic ownership of the team.
It also highlighted something considerably more important: Stroll doesn't need to own anything close to a majority to control it.
UK Companies House currently records Racing Point UK Holdings Limited, the Stroll-led consortium holding vehicle, as owning more than 25% but no more than 50% of AMR GP Holdings' shares. But it has 75% or more of the voting rights and the right to appoint or remove directors.
The latest articles of association define Racing Point UK Holdings as the 'Controlling Shareholder' for as long as it owns at least 15% of the company's shares.
That status brings significant governance rights, including around appointment of the chairman, directors and the quorum required for board meetings.
So Stroll has achieved something increasingly important in modern F1, he has brought substantial amounts of other people's capital into the business, and crystallised some of the extraordinary increase in its value, without surrendering control.
Arctos Partners, one of the biggest specialist sports investment firms in the world, is a substantial shareholder. HPS Investment Partners is another. Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund has an interest. Woody Johnson, owner of the New York Jets, joined through Delaware vehicle Green Racer LLC. Adrian Newey has an equity interest through a special class of shares. There are also management interests.
PlanetF1's analysis puts Newey's interest at approximately 4.7% and Racing Point UK itself at around 27%, with total Stroll-associated interests around 33%.
Ferrari: Publicly owned, family influenced
Ferrari ought to be straightforward as well.
It isn't a separately syndicated F1 operation like Aston Martin. Scuderia Ferrari sits inside Ferrari itself.
And Ferrari is a publicly listed company, so in one sense it has thousands of owners.
But that doesn't mean all Ferrari shares are created equally when it comes to control.
As of February 2026, Exor, the Agnelli family's investment company, owned 21.33% of Ferrari's ordinary shares.
Thanks to Ferrari's loyalty voting structure, those shares represented 32.32% of the voting power.
Piero Ferrari's trust held another 10.67% economically, representing 16.17% of the votes.
Put those together and interests representing around 32% of the economic ownership command approximately 48.5% of the voting power..
So saying Ferrari is ‘publicly owned’ is correct.
Saying Ferrari is a company over which the Agnelli/Exor and Ferrari family interests retain enormous influence is also correct.
And this is a good example of the difference between economic ownership and control.
There is another important difference with Ferrari. If someone says the Ferrari F1 team is worth $5billion, there isn't a standalone company containing Scuderia Ferrari that can simply be bought for that number.
Ferrari's F1 team is part of the wider Ferrari business.
That makes comparing an implied Ferrari F1 valuation with, say, a transaction in Aston Martin or Alpine slightly more apples and pears than most valuation tables acknowledge.
Red Bull and Racing Bulls: Two F1 teams, one strategic purpose
At its simplest, Red Bull Racing and Racing Bulls are ultimately part of the Red Bull empire.
The Race ·
内容来自公开信源，聚合内容版权归原作者与来源所有。