Antitrust Trial Poised to Reshape NASCAR Landscape as 23XI and Front Row Face Off Against Governing Body

A landmark antitrust trial involving 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR is set to commence, potentially ushering in a new era for premier stock car racing in North America. The legal battle, initiated by the two prominent teams, alleges that NASCAR has engaged in anti-competitive practices to maintain a monopolistic grip on the sport’s top tier. As the trial date looms, the figurative house of NASCAR’s business model appears to be smoldering, a sentiment echoed by Judge Kenneth D. Bell’s earlier warning of potential conflagration if a settlement isn’t reached.

The core of the dispute lies within NASCAR’s charter system, a framework that governs the business and competitive aspects of the Cup Series. 23XI Racing, co-owned by basketball legend Michael Jordan, along with driver Denny Hamlin and Curtis Polk, and Front Row Motorsports, filed their lawsuit in the Western District of North Carolina on October 2, 2024. They contend that NASCAR’s contractual restrictions, including non-compete clauses for both teams and tracks, stifle competition and constitute a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Specifically, Section 13 of the charter agreement, which includes a "no-sue" provision, and Section 6, a non-compete clause preventing teams from participating in rival series (with limited exceptions), are central to the teams’ claims.

23XI and Front Row, represented by lead attorney Jeffrey Kessler, argue that these alleged anti-competitive actions are designed to suppress revenue streams for teams and prevent them from exploring alternative market opportunities. Their suit further asserts that NASCAR’s acquisition of the ARCA Racing Series and its merger with track-owning entity International Speedway Corporation were strategic moves to consolidate its monopsonistic position. The teams also take issue with the current, fourth-year NextGen car, alleging that NASCAR exerts control over its base cost through a single-source supply chain, dictating component vendors.

The lawsuit emerged after 23XI and Front Row refused to sign the final charter agreement extension offered by NASCAR, following nearly three years of contentious negotiations. The charter system, established in 2016, grants teams a guaranteed spot in the Cup Series field and certain revenue shares. The protracted negotiations primarily revolved around the percentage of revenue charter-holding teams would receive from NASCAR’s upcoming broadcast rights agreements with FOX, NBC, Turner Sports, and Amazon Prime. Beyond revenue, teams sought to transform their charters into permanent, saleable assets, rather than assets subject to renegotiation every seven years. Disagreements also surfaced regarding NASCAR’s usage of team intellectual property and broader governance matters.

Related News :

Ultimately, 13 of the 15 Cup Series organizations agreed to a charter extension for the 2025-2031 period. NASCAR claims this agreement provides a 62 percent increase in revenue, derived from new broadcast rights deals, and reallocates $50 million previously designated for tracks in the 2016 agreement. However, 23XI and Front Row dispute these figures, arguing that the effective annual increase over 15 years (from 2016 to 2031) is only between 3-4 percent. This fundamental disagreement over the financial and structural terms led the two teams to file suit less than a month after the charter extension was finalized.

NASCAR’s defense, spearheaded by lead attorney Christopher Yates, centers on the assertion that 23XI and Front Row have not brought their antitrust claim in good faith. The governing body characterizes the lawsuit as "negotiation through litigation," suggesting the teams are using the courts to achieve terms they couldn’t secure at the bargaining table. NASCAR contends it has not restrained competition and has, in fact, increased the enterprise value of owning Cup Series teams since the charter system’s inception. The organization points to the significant rise in charter values, from approximately $1 million per entry a decade ago to upwards of $50 million in recent market transactions, as evidence of its positive impact. NASCAR argues that this increased valuation, along with the cost-containment promises of the single-source NextGen car, was a primary draw for investors like Michael Jordan.

Further bolstering NASCAR’s defense is the argument that 23XI and Front Row have previously agreed to the very charter provisions they now deem anti-competitive. Both teams have acquired charters from other organizations in the past without raising objections to the legality of specific clauses. NASCAR is expected to argue that exclusivity and non-compete provisions are standard and legal business practices within professional sports, essential for effective marketing and fan engagement.

Pre-trial settlement talks have been extensive but ultimately unsuccessful. Court-ordered mediation sessions in New York City in August 2025 and a subsequent, judge-mandated session in October yielded no agreement. While reports suggest progress was made on charter permanency, the parties reportedly remained divided over the allocation of mounting legal fees. Judge Bell’s observation that the parties met "in good faith" underscores the earnest, albeit unsuccessful, attempts at resolution.

The trial, set to begin with jury selection, is scheduled to last for 10 days, spread across two weeks. The proceedings will not be broadcast, and reporting will be limited to handwritten notes from attendees. Both sides have amassed substantial evidentiary exhibits, with 23XI and Front Row submitting 858 and NASCAR 961. While witness lists remain private, they are expected to include a roster of team owners, executives, and industry experts.

The case will be decided by a six-person jury, requiring a unanimous verdict. 23XI and Front Row bear the burden of proof, needing to demonstrate by a "preponderance of the evidence"—meaning it is more likely than not—that NASCAR engaged in anti-competitive practices. The teams are seeking over $300 million in damages, with any awarded amount limited to a four-year look-back period. Judge Bell also possesses the authority to impose significant antitrust remedies, including the potential divestiture of NASCAR-owned tracks, the dissolution of the single-source car supply, the elimination of exclusivity clauses, or a complete overhaul of the charter system itself.

A victory for 23XI and Front Row does not automatically guarantee the return of their charters, which were suspended under a preliminary injunction earlier this year. The damages sought by the teams include compensation for the loss of these charters. NASCAR is likely to argue that it cannot be compelled to do business with entities it chooses not to. However, Judge Bell has indicated a willingness to scrutinize the charter system’s legality, a stance that has prompted the 13 non-party charter teams to submit affidavits urging a settlement to protect their investments.

Should NASCAR prevail, 23XI and Front Row face the significant risk of ceasing operations by the end of the 2026 season, particularly if their charters are not reinstated. NASCAR could then potentially sell the suspended charters to interested parties, having reportedly received offers prior to the court’s order to hold off on such transactions.

Regardless of the federal district court’s decision, an appeal to the Fourth District of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, is highly probable, with the possibility of further review by the United States Supreme Court. This complex legal saga also includes a dismissed countersuit by NASCAR against 23XI, Hamlin, and Polk, which accused them of forming an illegal cartel to coerce favorable charter terms. NASCAR has indicated it will appeal the dismissal of this countersuit. Consequently, the upcoming trial represents not an endpoint, but a critical juncture in a protracted legal and business dispute that will undoubtedly continue to unfold, impacting the future structure and competitiveness of NASCAR.