Landmark Antitrust Trial Between NASCAR Teams and Sanctioning Body Concludes with Settlement

The protracted antitrust trial between 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports (FRM) and NASCAR, which had captivated the motorsports world and promised to reshape the sport’s future, has concluded with a surprising settlement. The agreement was announced on the ninth day of proceedings, bringing an abrupt end to the courtroom battle that had unfolded in a North Carolina courtroom. While the financial terms of the resolution remain undisclosed, both parties have released joint statements, signaling a move towards a more unified future for NASCAR.

At the heart of the dispute were the contentious charter agreements, a system that grants teams a guaranteed starting spot in Cup Series races and a share of the sport’s revenue. 23XI Racing and FRM alleged that NASCAR’s practices, particularly concerning the charter system and revenue distribution, constituted antitrust violations. Their legal team argued that NASCAR operated as a monopoly, stifling competition and unfairly disadvantaging team owners.

Key Moments and Testimony Throughout the Trial:

The trial, which spanned nine days, featured a series of pivotal moments and significant testimonies that shed light on the deep-seated issues within NASCAR.

Related News :

Day 9: Settlement Reached, Trial Concludes
The most significant development came on the final day when NASCAR reached an agreement with 23XI and FRM, leading to the dismissal of the jury. The joint statements released by all parties indicated a commitment to permanent or evergreen charters moving forward. The France family, owners of NASCAR, will continue to oversee the sport, and the charters that had been in question will be returned to the involved teams. This resolution avoids a potentially far-reaching verdict that could have altered the fundamental structure of NASCAR.

Day 8: Teams Rest Case, NASCAR Begins Defense
Prior to the settlement, NASCAR began presenting its defense. The day saw testimony from NASCAR Chief Financial Officer Greg Motto, who discussed the $400 million distributed to the France family trust. Team attorney Jeffrey Kessler presented arguments that NASCAR could afford to distribute significantly more revenue to teams, suggesting that payments of $720 million annually were feasible, a claim Motto countered by stating it would bankrupt the sport. Kessler also pointed to NASCAR’s $544 million profit from the sale of the Auto Club Speedway land, arguing it should have been allocated to teams rather than debt repayment from the 2019 International Speedway Corporation merger.

NASCAR’s defense began with John Probst, senior vice president of innovation and racing development, who testified about the Next Gen car and what he described as a "reckless" spending problem among teams. Attempts to draw parallels to historical open-wheel racing splits were met with objections from the judge. NASCAR CEO Jim France also testified, expressing reservations about "permanent" charters, stating, "I don’t know how you can set anything in this changing world we’re in as permanent. I’m just not comfortable making agreements that go on forever."

Day 7: France and Phelps Evasive, Childress Animated
This day was marked by the testimony of NASCAR CEO Jim France, Commissioner Steve Phelps, and team owner Richard Childress. Both France and Phelps were frequently met with responses of "I do not remember" or similar evasions when questioned on critical matters. Jeff Gordon, representing Hendrick Motorsports, had previously questioned Phelps about an email where he stated, "we wish we could give you permanent charters but Jim doesn’t want that." Phelps could not recall the exchange. Phelps also addressed NASCAR’s concerns about the Superstar Racing Experience (SRX), noting complaints from NBC’s executive producer about SRX causing marketplace confusion due to similar sponsorships and liveries.

Richard Childress, who had been the subject of unsealed messages showing disparaging remarks from NASCAR leadership, took the stand. He asserted his desire for permanent charters and was compelled by the judge to discuss a potential deal with former driver Bobby Hillin Jr. to acquire a portion of RCR, which included the possibility of purchasing a third charter. Childress expressed agitation, believing the discussion violated a non-disclosure agreement.

Day 6: Economic Expert Calculates Damages
Economist Edward Snyder, an expert witness for the teams, presented his findings, asserting that NASCAR had created "barriers" to competition and was paying teams below market value. Snyder calculated total damages of approximately $364.7 million owed to 23XI and FRM, with $215.8 million attributed to 23XI and $148.9 million to FRM. He drew comparisons to Formula 1’s Concorde Agreement. NASCAR’s legal team challenged Snyder’s expertise and the accuracy of his analysis.

Day 5: Michael Jordan and Heather Gibbs Testify
NBA legend and 23XI co-owner Michael Jordan took the stand, emphasizing his commitment to winning and his belief that teams and NASCAR should be "equal partners." He drew parallels to the NBA’s 50/50 revenue split and expressed that the "nature of the business to be unfair" within NASCAR. Jordan stated that the lawsuit was initiated because "Someone had to step forward to challenge NASCAR." NASCAR’s legal team attempted to portray Jordan’s financial advisor, Curtis Polk, as the instigator, motivated by a desire to sue the sanctioning body.

Heather Gibbs, daughter-in-law of Joe Gibbs Racing founder Joe Gibbs, testified about the September 6th "take-it-or-leave-it" deadline imposed by NASCAR for the 2025 Charter Agreement. She described feeling "held a gun to the head" and noted the agreement was filled with grammatical errors and lacked guaranteed broadcast revenue. She recounted Joe Gibbs pleading with Jim France, "Don’t do this to us!" France reportedly responded by stating he was "done with the conversation" and would accept whatever number of charters he ended up with.

NASCAR President Steve O’Donnell also testified, reiterating concerns about SRX and its potential to confuse the marketplace. Despite claims that SRX might return, sources close to the series indicated otherwise. O’Donnell highlighted the increase in charter values as evidence of the sport’s health, a point countered by the judge’s warning that "growing the sport" was not a valid defense.

Day 4: SRX "Threat" and Internal Strife Revealed
The former Superstar Racing Experience (SRX) series took center stage, with testimony revealing NASCAR’s perception of it as a competitive threat. Unsealed messages indicated that NASCAR leadership was concerned about SRX drivers and team owners participating in Tony Stewart’s series. NASCAR President Steve O’Donnell was questioned about these concerns, with the defense arguing that NASCAR’s actions, such as preventing SRX from racing at certain venues, were aimed at protecting its own revenue streams and broadcast agreements.

Internal communications also surfaced, suggesting a "legacy mindset" within the NASCAR Board of Directors, led by Jim France, was inhibiting growth. Jeff Gordon’s inquiry to Ben Kennedy about a new financial model for teams was met with a "no" from O’Donnell when asked if that was genuinely considered. O’Donnell also revealed that NASCAR lost $55 million on the Chicago Street Course and $6 million in Mexico City, framing these as strategic investments to secure broadcast partners like Amazon.

Day 3: Prime Grilled, Jenkins Testifies
NASCAR’s Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer, Scott Prime, faced intense cross-examination regarding the "goodwill provision" in the charter agreement, which he described as a mechanism to prevent team owners from competing in other series without NASCAR’s approval. The team’s attorney, Jeffrey Kessler, characterized this as "anti-competitive will," drawing an objection. The restrictions on the Next Gen car were also scrutinized as tools to restrain trade. Prime’s testimony also touched upon the "take it or leave it" ultimatum from NASCAR, with Kessler arguing that "Only a monopolist has the power to say, ‘Take my offer and if you don’t take it, you will no longer be in this business, and someone else will take your place.’"

Bob Jenkins, owner of Front Row Motorsports, testified about his team’s financial struggles, losing $6.8 million annually and never turning a profit. He highlighted the increased cost of components under the Next Gen car ($4.7 million per year) compared to the previous generation ($1.8 million). Jenkins described the September 6th deadline as "insulting" and "backwards," and noted that no owner expressed happiness in signing the agreement.

Day 2: Hamlin Faces Tense Cross-Examination
Driver and 23XI co-owner Denny Hamlin endured a contentious cross-examination, repeatedly stating, "We’re not a monopoly like you are." Hamlin shared personal frustrations with NASCAR CEO Jim France, recalling a conversation where France blamed team spending for NASCAR’s problems. Hamlin argued that cost-cutting measures were not realistic for teams. His salary of $14 million per year as a Joe Gibbs Racing driver was also discussed.

Scott Prime was questioned about internal disagreements within NASCAR regarding charter terms and Jim France’s resistance to negotiation. He also addressed NASCAR’s historical efforts to prevent breakaway series, drawing parallels to potential CART/IRL splits and discussing "Project Gold Codes" as a contingency plan for boycotts.

Day 1: Jury Selection, Opening Statements, and Hamlin Testimony
The trial commenced with jury selection, followed by opening statements from both sides. Denny Hamlin was the first witness, testifying for approximately 40 minutes before cross-examination. A key point raised by Hamlin was the constant competition between teams and NASCAR for sponsorships, employees, and attention. NASCAR’s legal team framed the lawsuit as an attack on the charter system by teams who refused to sign the new agreement. The team’s attorneys aimed to establish a pattern of anti-competitive behavior orchestrated by Jim France, supported by text messages.

The resolution of this trial marks a significant moment for NASCAR, averting a potentially disruptive legal outcome. The agreement to implement permanent charters suggests a path toward greater stability and potentially a more collaborative relationship between the sanctioning body and its team owners. The full implications of this settlement on the future governance and financial structure of NASCAR will likely unfold in the coming months and years.