rifan muazin
The courtroom in Charlotte, North Carolina, became the stage for a pivotal moment in NASCAR’s history on Monday as the antitrust trial, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports v NASCAR, commenced. The first day of proceedings saw jury selection, compelling opening statements from both the plaintiffs and the defendant, and the initial testimony of a key witness, NASCAR Cup Series driver and 23XI Racing co-owner Denny Hamlin. The trial, expected to span two weeks, centers on allegations that NASCAR has engaged in anti-competitive practices that unfairly disadvantage team owners in the sport’s premier series.
Lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Jeffrey Kessler, outlined a strategy for the jury that he contends will reveal a deliberate anti-competitive scheme orchestrated by NASCAR CEO Jim France. Kessler stated that evidence, including internal emails and text messages from NASCAR executives Steve Phelps, Steve O’Donnell, and Scott Prime, will demonstrate an "awareness of unfairness" among these leaders during negotiations for charter extensions. He specifically cited a text message exchange previously revealed over the summer, where Phelps reportedly described the charter offer as giving teams "zero wins," and O’Donnell characterized it as a "’fuck the teams’ offer that would take NASCAR back to its ‘tiny southern roots, the tiny sport of 1996.’" Kessler posited that these executives understood Jim France’s directives and the family’s control over NASCAR’s board of directors, suggesting they were complicit in actions detrimental to the teams.
Kessler detailed the plaintiffs’ grievances regarding the charter agreement negotiations. He stated that teams sought permanent charters, a request that was denied. Furthermore, the proposed financial terms offered $12.5 million per car, falling short of the teams’ requested $20 million. An additional point of contention was the refusal of teams’ demand for veto power over competition changes, a concession that also resulted in the loss of a "three strikes" provision from the previous charter agreement, which had offered teams a degree of veto authority. Kessler likened the concept of non-permanent charters to renting a house versus owning one, arguing that teams desire permanent ownership to enhance their enterprise value. He asserted that granting permanent charters would incur "absolutely nothing" for NASCAR, yet the sanctioning body has resisted this proposition.
To explain the concept of monopsony, a market situation where there is only one buyer for a particular good or service, Kessler used an analogy of a nurse seeking employment. "If there is only one hospital, and you want to be a nurse, you either take whatever they pay you or you’re not going to be a nurse," Kessler explained to the jury. He then laid out three overarching points that the plaintiffs intend to prove to establish their case. In his closing remarks, Kessler reiterated the assertion that Jim France leveraged NASCAR’s monopsony status to suppress team earnings. He indicated that expert testimony would demonstrate that teams would receive 45 percent of NASCAR’s value in a fair market, a figure significantly higher than the reported 39 percent they currently receive. "What the evidence is going to show is that (Jim) France ran this for his family at the expense of the teams," Kessler declared. He also presented financial context, referencing a Goldman Sachs valuation of NASCAR at $5 billion and noting the sanctioning body’s $400 million earnings over the past three years.
Related News :
- Larson Offers Words of Empathy for Hamlin’s Crushing Championship Defeat
- Phoenix Finale Gripped by Tire Troubles, But Blame Doesn’t Fall on Goodyear
- Betting Markets Open on 2026 NASCAR Cup Series Title, Kyle Larson and Denny Hamlin Emerge as Early Favorites
- Briscoe Reflects on Championship Race Frustration Amidst Stellar Joe Gibbs Racing Debut
- Dale Earnhardt Jr. believes NASCAR charter settlement signals a shift toward a franchise model, potentially elevating team valuations significantly.
Representing NASCAR, attorney John E. Stephenson presented the sanctioning body’s opening statement, articulating a defense consistent with previous public statements. Stephenson framed the lawsuit by 23XI and Front Row as an attack on the charter system itself, a system that NASCAR claims to have upheld with "every word and every cent" since its inception in 2016. He emphasized that the antitrust claims were not raised by 23XI and Front Row until after the charter extension deadline and the issuance of the final offer in September 2024. "Literally none of these things were raised to NASCAR until the lawsuit was filed," Stephenson stated. "From 2016 to 2024, none of it was brought up."
Stephenson highlighted a September 6 letter from 23XI explaining their non-signature of the agreement, which he noted made no mention of anti-competitive behavior. He indicated similar communications from Front Row. NASCAR’s position, according to Stephenson, is that 23XI likely intended to file a lawsuit if their desired financial terms were not met. He cited a discovery email from Curtis Polk, a 23XI co-owner, stating, "A lawsuit is our greatest leverage," and characterized the teams’ actions as "negotiation through litigation," aiming for better terms rather than rectifying an antitrust wrong. Stephenson also presented a Polk email regarding a proposed meeting with NASCAR, where Polk allegedly said, "I hope they don’t come because it will build our record," suggesting a lack of good faith negotiations by 23XI. Further, Stephenson pointed to private Polk emails from 2023 that expressed "admiration" for the France family’s business acumen and contained no references to anti-competitive behavior.
A key point of NASCAR’s defense, Stephenson argued, is the question of why 23XI continued to acquire charters if they were purportedly a product of anti-competitive behavior and a "bad deal." Addressing the non-compete clause that teams must agree to, Stephenson drew a parallel to non-compete clauses signed by drivers with their teams. He explained that the provision preventing teams from competing against NASCAR was a trade-off for greater guaranteed revenue, stating, "Be all in on NASCAR Stock Car racing, is what that says. You’re getting guaranteed money. They agreed to it. They never made claims against it until filing their lawsuit." Regarding the merger of NASCAR with International Speedway Corporation (ISC) as an alleged anti-competitive measure to control tracks, Stephenson asserted it was driven by a need for "schedule flexibility" and "innovation," enabling NASCAR and ISC to take risks on events like the Chicago Street Race and the Los Angeles Coliseum event, which a publicly traded entity might be less inclined to pursue. Stephenson repeatedly questioned "why are we here," suggesting Polk had a pre-meditated plan to sue NASCAR if charter terms were not met.
The first day concluded with approximately 40 minutes of testimony from Denny Hamlin. His initial questioning, conducted by Jeanifer Parsigian of Winston & Strawn, focused on foundational aspects of his involvement with 23XI Racing. Judge Kenneth D. Bell had previously ruled on a NASCAR motion to limit the number of 23XI owners present for testimony to one, designating Jordan as that representative. Hamlin, as the first witness, was permitted to remain in court.
Parsigian’s examination of Hamlin touched on his racing career and the operational challenges of team ownership. Hamlin recounted his most recent season’s conclusion, stating, "I was leading the championship race with three to go. The caution came out. I lost." A recurring theme in Hamlin’s testimony was the competitive landscape for sponsorships, a challenge he brought up multiple times. He explained that 23XI’s acquisition of the Germain Racing charter in 2021 was partly due to Germain losing its sponsorship to NASCAR. Hamlin described his role as co-owner as involving competition and sponsorship acquisition, referring to himself as a "professional fundraiser," and again highlighted the need to compete with NASCAR for potential sponsors and employees. He detailed the $35 million investment in 23XI’s "Airspeed" race shop as a strategic move to attract sponsorship and talent.
Hamlin became emotional when discussing his racing origins and the support of his parents, particularly his father, whose health is reportedly declining. He stated that the cost to field a Cup car is $20 million, with the current charter agreement covering $12.5 million, necessitating significant sponsorship to cover the remaining expenses. He acknowledged that Michael Jordan’s co-ownership was instrumental in 23XI’s ability to achieve profitability, making Jordan an appealing partner for the team Hamlin had long desired to own. 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. "If the terms were fair, they wouldn’t have gone out of business," Hamlin asserted. "Only one side is going out of business." He also noted that 23XI’s profits are subject to fluctuations influenced by NASCAR’s decisions, such as mid-season rule updates, which can cost approximately $1.5 million per car, and international race events. Hamlin also disclosed that 23XI pays Joe Gibbs Racing $2.66 million per car annually as an alliance fee, reflecting JGR’s position as the primary Toyota organization. He mentioned that his business partners urge him to run 23XI as leanly as possible, contrasting with the 500 employees at a team like JGR.
The day began with jury selection, which involved identifying six jurors and three alternates. Prospective jurors were questioned about their familiarity with NASCAR and the involved parties, including Michael Jordan. One candidate was dismissed for working at Hendrick Automotive Group, while another was excused for having extensive knowledge of NASCAR and the parties, which could impact impartiality. Notably, two candidates expressed strong opinions about Michael Jordan, leading to their dismissal, one of whom shared a lighthearted moment with Judge Bell and Jordan. Another candidate was dismissed due to hearing difficulties, and one juror candidate, who humorously listed "heavy drinking" as a hobby on his questionnaire, was selected for the final panel.
Prior to the proceedings, Judge Bell admonished both legal teams for a "confrontational" approach and prohibited the use of exhibits during opening statements, expressing concern that disallowed exhibits might be presented. He urged a less confrontational demeanor moving forward.
The potential witness list presented by both sides includes prominent figures from NASCAR’s leadership and ownership ranks. For NASCAR, potential witnesses include 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 have listed Richard Childress, Rick Hendrick, Roger Penske, Heather Gibbs, Cal Wells III, Steve Newmark, Rob Kauffman, and Jonathan Marshall as potential witnesses.
💬 Tinggalkan Komentar dengan Facebook
Author Profile
Latest entries
Nascar CupJanuary 8, 2026Jimmie Johnson Returns to NASCAR Truck Series for Hometown Street Race Debut
Nascar CupJanuary 8, 2026Bass Pro Shops CEO Pens Scathing Open Letter to NASCAR Over "Shockingly Offensive" Remarks About Richard Childress
Nascar CupJanuary 8, 2026Chase Elliott’s Iconic No. 9 NAPA Chevrolet to Sport Refreshed Livery for 2026 NASCAR Season
Nascar CupJanuary 8, 20262025 NASCAR Season Delivers Thrilling Championship, Legal Battles, and Emerging Stars
Anshari Taslim
Ali Akbar Rosady