rifan muazin
The antitrust trial involving NASCAR, 23XI Racing, and Front Row Motorsports has entered a critical phase, with senior NASCAR officials fielding pointed questions from legal counsel. The central theme emerging from the courtroom over the past week has been a consistent pattern of responses from NASCAR executives, characterized by claims of "I don’t know" or "I wasn’t there" when pressed on matters falling under their purview. Lead attorney Jeffrey Kessler, representing 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, has strategically employed this line of questioning to construct a narrative suggesting that NASCAR leadership was aware of teams’ desire for more favorable terms during charter extension negotiations but ultimately thwarted these efforts at the behest of Jim France.
This courtroom strategy has seen executives like NASCAR President Steve O’Donnell, Commissioner Steve Phelps, and CEO Jim France repeatedly deflecting direct inquiries. Kessler’s tactic to counter these evasions involves probing the officials’ considerable compensation, often exceeding a million dollars annually in salary and bonuses. The implication is that individuals drawing such substantial incomes would possess intimate knowledge of NASCAR’s operational and decision-making processes, making claims of ignorance less credible.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, both Commissioner Steve Phelps and CEO Jim France faced intense scrutiny. Kessler presented evidence, including emails purportedly written by Phelps, that suggested an internal awareness of teams’ needs for improved contract terms. However, Phelps’ responses often defaulted to memory lapses. Kessler, in a pointed remark, suggested that Phelps might recall details more clearly during cross-examination by his own attorney. Despite these deflections, Phelps did recall specific dates related to the COVID-19 shutdown, noting its commencement on March 13, 2020, and NASCAR’s return on May 18, 2020.
Kessler’s case aims to portray Jim France as the ultimate arbiter who consistently rejected proposals that would have granted teams greater financial security and long-term stability, even when his own senior executives, like O’Donnell and Phelps, indicated potential merit in such concessions. Emails presented in court showed Phelps communicating this sentiment to figures like Rick Hendrick, stating, "we wish we could give you permanent charters but Jim doesn’t want that." Yet, Phelps claimed to have forgotten the specifics surrounding such communications.
Related News :
- Brad Keselowski Discharged from Hospital Following Successful Leg Surgery
- Kyle Larson Expresses Empathy for Denny Hamlin’s Heartbreak in NASCAR Championship Stumble
- Antitrust Lawsuit: NASCAR, 23XI and Front Row Finalize Jury Instructions as Trial Looms
- Phoenix Finale Marred by Tire Woes, but Scrutiny Falls on Teams, Not Tire Manufacturer
- NASCAR’s Ownership Charter System: A Decade of Influence and Legal Scrutiny
Further challenging NASCAR’s official stance, Kessler highlighted communications where Phelps expressed frustration with France’s inflexibility. An email exchange between Phelps, O’Donnell, and others revealed a stark directive: "Pick a date and they can sign or lose their charters. It is that simple." This statement, Kessler argued, indicated a forceful approach dictated by France.
The trial has also delved into NASCAR’s response to potential competitive threats. Phelps was questioned about the inclusion of more restrictive track exclusivity agreements in Speedway Motorsports contracts, coinciding with the Race Team Alliance’s exploration of independent racing series and the nascent SRX tour. Phelps responded with "No idea" when asked about the rationale behind these agreements.
Additionally, private text messages from Phelps, dated February 2, 2023, were presented, in which he referred to a rival series as "trash" and suggested the need to "put a knife in this trash series." Kessler used this to underscore his argument that NASCAR actively sought to stifle competition. Phelps explained his sentiment as frustration over teams using similar sponsors and liveries to NASCAR in competing series, though he also acknowledged prior communications to then-NASCAR President Brent Dewar about "fight[ing] to protect" their market share from rivals. Kessler’s overarching objective is to demonstrate that France, through NASCAR’s monopsony power, has leveraged unfavorable terms upon the teams, leaving them with limited viable alternatives. France, however, unequivocally denied this assertion when questioned by Kessler.
The discussion then shifted to the concept of permanent charters. Kessler posited that France’s opposition stemmed from a desire to retain control and prevent teams from gaining "more power" within the sport’s structure. Phelps again denied this, stating, "He is not." Kessler countered that permanent charters would prevent NASCAR from revoking them or implementing a strategy of operating a series entirely in-house, a point Phelps conceded NASCAR "couldn’t" do if charters were permanent. Kessler’s attempt to frame France as a "benevolent dictator" drew an objection from NASCAR’s lead attorney, Chris Yates, a question Kessler ultimately withdrew but whose implication remained potent.
Jim France Takes the Stand
On the witness stand, Jim France, son of NASCAR founder Bill France Sr., faced direct questioning regarding his interactions with prominent team owners seeking permanent charters. Despite professing long-standing friendships with individuals like Rick Hendrick, Roger Penske, Joe Gibbs, Jack Roush, and Richard Childress, France denied their requests for "evergreen" or permanent charters. Kessler presented letters and testimony indicating these owners had directly appealed to France for such agreements, a sentiment France claimed not to recall. He acknowledged the content of the letters when shown them but maintained his stance against permanent charters.
France’s recollection of a crucial phone call with Joe Gibbs on September 6th, the deadline day for charter negotiations, was also contested. Heather Gibbs, Joe Gibbs’ daughter-in-law, testified that Coach Gibbs pleaded with France not to proceed with an offer he deemed unfair. France stated he could not recall telling Gibbs, "if I only get 20 charters back, I get 20 charters back," and when pressed if he denied it, responded, "I’m not sure I did." This pattern of "I don’t remember" dominated much of France’s testimony, with Kessler noting that France could not answer approximately 90 percent of his questions.
A particularly striking exchange involved Kessler questioning France about NASCAR’s financial standing. When asked about projected revenue, distribution money, and the France family’s equity ownership, France repeatedly responded with uncertainty, claiming he "hadn’t looked at it" or was "not aware of that." His response to whether the France family owned all equity in NASCAR was a hesitant "I think so," and he couldn’t recall a Goldman Sachs estimate of NASCAR’s equity at $5 billion. His involvement in a meeting concerning the acquisition of Speedway Motorsports was also met with a vague "I might have been. I don’t know."
The disparity in salary recollection also surfaced. When asked about his annual compensation, France initially estimated "around $3.5 million range," which Kessler corrected to "$3.8 million." France readily agreed, stating, "Pretty close. We’ll go with that."
The emotional impact of a letter from Heather Gibbs was also addressed. O’Donnell had previously testified that France swore aloud upon reading it. However, France denied being upset by its contents and did not recall reading it aloud. O’Donnell later clarified that he had exaggerated France’s reaction but did not dispute that the letter was read in a meeting.
Discrepancies also emerged regarding a 2021 meeting where NASCAR senior leadership discussed upcoming charter negotiations. O’Donnell’s summary indicated France’s opposition to a "most favored nations" clause, the elimination of the three-strike rule, and France’s desire to own charters – provisions that were ultimately ratified in the 2025-2031 agreement. France claimed no memory of being involved in this meeting until presented with O’Donnell’s email, to which he responded, "It appears that way." Similarly, when O’Donnell’s recollection of France stating, "WE ARE IN COMPETITION. WE ARE GOING TO WIN," was presented, France stated, "I don’t recall making those comments."
Richard Childress Faces Unexpected Scrutiny
While Richard Childress, owner of Richard Childress Racing (RCR), was expected to be a key figure in the trial, the headlines surrounding his testimony were not about his expected advocacy for permanent charters, which he stated were crucial for his grandsons Austin and Ty to inherit the team. Instead, cross-examination by NASCAR’s attorney Chris Yates introduced unexpected revelations.
Childress was initially reluctant to disclose his ownership stake in RCR, stating, "I don’t want to answer that," before being compelled by Judge Kenneth D. Bell to respond under oath. He revealed he owns 60 percent of the team, with the remaining 40 percent held by private equity firm Chartwell Investments.
Yates then questioned Childress about discussions with former NASCAR driver Bobby Hillin Jr. regarding the latter’s exploration of purchasing a portion of RCR. This proposed deal involved a group led by Hillin acquiring shares from both Childress and Chartwell Investments, and conceptually included the purchase of a third charter. Childress again expressed reluctance to answer, citing non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and agitation that this information was being made public. He stated that Chartwell was looking to exit the sport and that Hillin’s group lacked the necessary funding, leading to the termination of discussions.
Further complicating matters, Hillin’s group had reportedly audited RCR’s financial statements, which showed consistent profitability. Childress expressed similar agitation about this information being revealed, also believing it to be protected by an NDA. When asked if RCR’s constant profitability was true, Childress responded, "I guess."
After the jury was dismissed, legal teams for 23XI and Front Row requested that NASCAR produce documents related to Hillin’s claims and identify their source. Judge Bell directed both parties to discuss the matter and present a resolution by 10 p.m.
Childress elaborated on RCR’s financial structure, explaining that other businesses under his umbrella subsidize the race team. These ventures include a manufacturing shop for chassis work, military equipment production, ECR Engines, and a vineyard. He stated, "I have other businesses to pay our bills for NASCAR," and that without them, "I’d be broke if I was just doing the Cup teams." However, he maintained that the profits from these other businesses should ideally flow into his personal accounts rather than be used to fund his NASCAR operations.
💬 Tinggalkan Komentar dengan Facebook
Author Profile
Latest entries
Nascar CupJanuary 18, 2026Rick Ware Racing announces significant manufacturer shift for 2026 NASCAR Cup Series campaign
Nascar CupJanuary 18, 2026NASCAR Trial Unfolds as Executives Maintain Evasive Stance Amidst Team Owner’s Testimony
Nascar CupJanuary 18, 2026Dale Earnhardt Jr. Expresses Astonishment at NASCAR’s Perceived Threat from Superstar Racing Experience
Nascar CupJanuary 18, 2026NTSB Focuses on Pilot Verification Amidst Investigation into Fatal Greg Biffle Plane Crash
arthur roy sitompul
Anshari Taslim
Ali Akbar Rosady