rifan muazin
The highly anticipated antitrust trial involving NASCAR, 23XI Racing, and Front Row Motorsports commenced on Monday, marking the beginning of what is expected to be a two-week legal battle in Charlotte, North Carolina. The first day was characterized by the meticulous process of jury selection, the presentation of opening statements by both the plaintiffs and the defendant, and the initial testimony of a key witness, 23XI Racing co-owner Denny Hamlin.
The plaintiffs, represented by lead attorney Jeffrey Kessler, laid out their strategy, which centers on the assertion that NASCAR, under the leadership of CEO Jim France, has engaged in an anti-competitive business practice designed to suppress the earnings of the teams that form the backbone of the Cup Series. Kessler informed the jury that they would be presented with evidence, including emails and text messages, allegedly demonstrating that NASCAR executives Steve Phelps, Steve O’Donnell, and Scott Prime were aware of the unfairness inherent in the negotiations for charter extensions.
A pivotal piece of evidence presented by the plaintiffs was a text message exchange from the summer, reportedly involving Phelps and O’Donnell. According to reports, Phelps described the charter extension offer as giving teams "zero wins," while O’Donnell allegedly characterized it as a "fuck the teams" offer that would revert NASCAR to its "tiny southern roots, the tiny sport of 1996." Kessler argued that these communications, along with others, indicated a clear understanding among senior NASCAR leadership about the detrimental impact of Jim France’s directives on the teams.
The plaintiffs contend that NASCAR ultimately pushed through a charter extension deal that their own executives privately acknowledged as unfavorable. This offer, presented in September 2024, was allegedly framed as a "take it or leave it" ultimatum, with the implicit threat of losing charters if not accepted by a midnight deadline. Kessler characterized this maneuver as a clear exercise of "monopoly power" resulting in "monopoly injury" to the teams.
Related News :
- Unsealed Documents Reveal NASCAR’s Scathing View of SRX Amidst Charter Negotiations
- Chevrolet Unveils Aggressively Redesigned Camaro ZL1 for 2026 NASCAR Cup Season
- Kyle Larson Clinches NASCAR Cup Series Title Amidst Denny Hamlin’s Heartbreak
- Federal Judge Mandates Unrestricted Depositions for Penske and Hendrick in Antitrust Lawsuit
- New NASCAR Documentary Series "RISING" Showcases Next Generation of Stars
Specific grievances highlighted by Kessler included the teams’ desire for permanent charters, which they did not receive, and a proposed $20 million per car payout that was allegedly reduced to $12.5 million. Furthermore, the plaintiffs claim that their request for veto power over competition changes was not only denied but also resulted in the removal of the "three strikes" provision from the previous charter agreement, which had afforded teams a degree of influence over such decisions. The concept of permanent charters was analogized by Kessler to owning a home rather than renting, emphasizing the teams’ desire to build long-term enterprise value. He argued that granting permanent charters would impose no financial cost on NASCAR, yet the sanctioning body has resisted this concession.
To illustrate the concept of monopsony—a market situation where there is only one buyer for a particular good or service—Kessler used the analogy of a nurse seeking employment in a town with only one hospital. In such a scenario, the nurse would have to accept whatever wage the hospital offered, or forgo their profession. Kessler outlined three core points his team intended to prove to establish NASCAR’s alleged monopsony status and its detrimental impact on the teams. He concluded his opening statement by reiterating that Jim France allegedly steered NASCAR for the benefit of his family, at the expense of the teams, and presented expert testimony suggesting that teams should receive 45% of NASCAR’s value in a fair market, compared to the alleged current 39%. Financial context was provided by citing a Goldman Sachs valuation of NASCAR at $5 billion and noting the sanctioning body’s $400 million revenue over the past three years.
Representing NASCAR, attorney John E. Stephenson presented the sanctioning body’s defense. Stephenson framed the lawsuit by 23XI and Front Row as an attack on the charter system itself, a system that NASCAR maintains has been honored in both letter and spirit since its inception in 2016. He emphasized that the antitrust claims were not raised until after the charter extension deadline had passed and the final offer was issued in September 2024. Stephenson cited a letter from 23XI on September 6 and communications with Front Row, arguing that these documents did not mention anticompetitive behavior, and that such claims only surfaced after the lawsuit was filed.
NASCAR’s position is that 23XI Racing likely planned to file a lawsuit if they could not secure their desired financial terms. Stephenson pointed to an email from 23XI co-owner Curtis Polk, which reportedly stated, "A lawsuit is our greatest leverage," suggesting a strategy of "negotiation through litigation." Further support for this argument came from another Polk email, which allegedly expressed hope that a meeting with NASCAR would not proceed because it would "build our record," indicating a lack of good faith negotiation. Stephenson also referenced private emails from Polk in 2023 that conveyed "admiration" for the France family’s business acumen without any mention of anticompetitive behavior.
A key point of NASCAR’s defense is the question of why 23XI continued to purchase charters if they believed them to be the product of anticompetitive behavior and a "bad deal." Regarding the non-compete clause that teams must agree to, Stephenson drew a parallel to the non-compete clauses signed by drivers with their teams. He explained that the provision prohibiting teams from competing against NASCAR was a concession in exchange for greater guaranteed revenue, essentially requiring teams to be "all in on NASCAR Stock Car racing." Stephenson reiterated that teams agreed to these terms and did not raise objections until filing their lawsuit.
The merger of NASCAR with its sister company, International Speedway Corporation, was addressed by Stephenson, who countered the plaintiffs’ claim that it was an anti-competitive measure to secure tracks. He asserted that the merger was driven by a need for "schedule flexibility" and "innovation," allowing NASCAR to take risks on events like the Chicago Street Race and the Los Angeles Coliseum event, even though it owned nearby tracks. These decisions, he argued, were difficult for a publicly traded entity like ISC. Stephenson repeatedly questioned the reason for the lawsuit, suggesting Polk had a premeditated plan to sue if charter terms were not met.
The first day concluded with approximately 40 minutes of testimony from Denny Hamlin. His direct examination by his legal team, led by Jeanifer Parsigian, focused on foundational aspects of his involvement with 23XI Racing. Hamlin recounted his racing background, acknowledging a less-than-ideal outcome in the recent championship race, and highlighted the competitive nature of securing sponsorships. He stated that 23XI had to compete with NASCAR itself for potential sponsors, using the example of Germain Racing losing its GEICO sponsorship to NASCAR, which led to its closure.
Hamlin described his role as a "professional fundraiser" and emphasized the significant competition for both sponsors and employees. He explained that the $35 million investment in the "Airspeed" race shop was an effort to attract both. He also grew emotional when discussing his parents’ support for his racing career, particularly his father’s declining health. Hamlin underscored the substantial cost of fielding a Cup car—approximately $20 million annually—with the current charter agreement covering $12.5 million, necessitating significant sponsorship revenue. He credited Michael Jordan’s co-ownership for 23XI’s ability to generate profits where other teams have struggled.
When asked about the fairness of the charter agreement, Hamlin pointed to the fact that 11 of the original 19 charter teams from 2016 have ceased operations, stating, "If the terms were fair, they wouldn’t have gone out of business." He also noted that 23XI’s profitability is influenced by factors outside its control, such as mid-season rule changes and international races, which can incur substantial costs. Hamlin revealed that 23XI pays Joe Gibbs Racing $2.66 million per car annually for an alliance fee, contributing to JGR’s status as the primary Toyota organization. He mentioned that his business partners advise running 23XI as leanly as possible, explaining why his team has 140 employees compared to JGR’s 500.
Earlier in the day, Judge Kenneth D. Bell ruled on a NASCAR motion requesting that only one of the three 23XI owners be present to hear all testimony. The judge, while reluctant, granted the motion to avoid potential grounds for a retrial, designating Jordan as that representative. Hamlin, as the first witness, will be permitted to remain in the courtroom for the remainder of the trial after his testimony concludes, as will Polk once he has testified.
The jury selection process, which took just over two hours, resulted in a panel of six men and three women. Both Judge Bell and the attorneys engaged with potential jurors, including discussions about familiarity with Michael Jordan and any pre-existing opinions that could affect impartiality. Two candidates were dismissed for their extensive knowledge of NASCAR and the parties involved, and for expressing strong feelings about Michael Jordan, respectively. One candidate’s humorous response about "heavy drinking" as a hobby on his questionnaire led to him being questioned about its potential impact on his ability to serve, but he ultimately became one of the nine selected jurors.
The day began with Judge Bell addressing both legal teams regarding a "confrontational" approach, warning against the use of disallowed exhibits in opening statements and urging a more cooperative demeanor moving forward.
The list of potential witnesses for both sides was also revealed. NASCAR’s list includes Jim France, Lesa France Kennedy, Ben Kennedy, Brian Herbst, Steve O’Donnell, Steve Phelps, Scott Prime, Tim Clark, Greg Motto, John Probst, and Ron Drager. The teams’ potential witnesses include Richard Childress, Rick Hendrick, Roger Penske, Heather Gibbs, Cal Wells III, Steve Newmark, Rob Kauffman, and Jonathan Marshall.
💬 Tinggalkan Komentar dengan Facebook
Author Profile
Latest entries
Nascar CupDecember 16, 2025Rising Star Connor Zilisch Set for GTP Debut in 2026 Rolex 24 at Daytona with Action Express Racing
Nascar CupDecember 16, 2025Denny Hamlin Demands Accountability from SiriusXM NASCAR Radio Hosts Following Lawsuit Settlement
Nascar CupDecember 16, 2025Day One of NASCAR Antitrust Trial Unfolds with Opening Arguments and Initial Testimony
Nascar CupDecember 16, 2025Richard Childress Weighs Legal Recourse Amidst Unsealed NASCAR Executive Communications
Ali Akbar Rosady
arthur roy sitompul
Anshari Taslim