Front Row Motorsports Owner Bob Jenkins and NASCAR Executive Scott Prime Face Scrutiny in Antitrust Trial

DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. – The ongoing antitrust trial involving 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR entered its third day with critical testimony from NASCAR’s Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer, Scott Prime, and the commencement of testimony from Front Row Motorsports team owner Bob Jenkins. The proceedings, held in a federal court, delved into the intricacies of NASCAR’s charter system, intellectual property regulations, and the negotiation tactics employed during the recent charter extension discussions.

Scott Prime, who concluded his testimony on Tuesday, continued to be a central figure under examination by Jeffrey Kessler, the attorney representing 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports. The exchanges, at times, became tense, prompting Kessler to issue an apology for raising his voice, to which Prime responded with understanding, acknowledging the “passions” involved in the proceedings.

Kessler’s line of questioning began by scrutinizing the “goodwill provision” within the charter agreement. This clause, which requires team owners with a 10% ownership stake to refrain from competing in or owning a stake in another racing series without NASCAR’s approval, was a focal point. Kessler challenged the nomenclature, asking Prime, "Why not call it what it really is?" to which Prime, identifying as not a lawyer, replied, "I’m not a lawyer." Kessler countered, suggesting it "should be called anti-competitive will," a statement that drew an objection from NASCAR’s legal team. The provision stipulates a 12-month waiting period for individuals exiting the Cup Series before they can own a car or stake in a different series. Prime maintained that he viewed this provision as “goodwill.”

The discussion then shifted to the intellectual property restrictions surrounding the NextGen car. Kessler sought to frame these restrictions as a deliberate strategy to stifle trade and competition, a core argument of the lawsuit. Previously disclosed documents revealed Prime’s concerns about the previous generation of car, the Gen-6, posing an “increased risk to NASCAR of copycat series” due to less stringent intellectual property controls. This implied NASCAR’s apprehension that teams might race cars similar to those in the Cup Series in non-NASCAR events. Prime, however, stated this had “never been an issue with the teams,” asserting that they understood and endorsed the NextGen car’s design and its associated protections, emphasizing that the teams also desired cost containment. Kessler highlighted that teams do not possess a formal voting mechanism under charter rules.

Related News :

Further revelations emerged regarding the negotiations for the 2025 charter extension. An email dated February 10 from Prime to NASCAR executive John P. Alsten expressed significant disappointment over the race teams’ decision to cease negotiations and instead “explore all our options.” The teams had put forth four key demands: 45% of industry revenue, exemption from the Driver Ambassador Program fees, 30% of new revenue generated by leveraging team intellectual property, and permanent charters.

The impasse led to contingency planning by NASCAR, as detailed in discovered documents. Prime outlined potential strategies, including reducing the number of charters to 32 and offering them on a “first come, first serve” basis among existing charter holders, a tactic Kessler likened to “musical chairs” designed to create scarcity and competition. Another option was a hard deadline, which ultimately materialized on September 6, 2024. A more drastic measure, "Project Gold Codes," envisioned NASCAR operating races independently, hiring its own drivers and fielding its own cars.

In response to Prime’s internal discussions about these contingency plans, Alsten reportedly wrote, “You accurately reflected our options… They are playing with fire. Lots of options but all have the same theme: Pick a date and they can sign or lose their charters. It is that simple.” Kessler seized on this communication, arguing it was a clear demonstration of monopolistic behavior, stating, "Only a monopolist could say this… 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.’" Prime countered that these were merely contingency plans in case teams formed a breakaway series, and that another path involved continuing efforts to “find a middle ground with the teams,” which ultimately occurred.

Despite the deadline, NASCAR did not secure new team owners for the 2025 season. Prime reiterated that NASCAR’s actions were driven by the necessity of having contingency plans. When questioned by Kessler about where a breakaway series would race, given NASCAR’s track exclusivity clauses, Prime suggested alternative venues like short tracks and street courses. Kessler dismissed this, pointing to the $50 million loss NASCAR incurred over three years for the Chicago Street Race. Prime argued that “locking up tracks” was part of multi-year scheduling agreements, citing TNT’s interest in Atlanta Motor Speedway due to its connection with Turner Sports. However, Kessler contested that this did not necessitate the new, multi-year exclusivity clauses.

The testimony then turned to "The Amanda Chart," a document compiled by NASCAR’s Chief Legal Officer Amanda Oliver, which reportedly illustrated only one “win” for the race teams during negotiations. Internal communications between Prime, NASCAR’s Chief Operating Officer Tim O’Donnell, and Alsten revealed internal disagreements about CEO Jim France’s negotiating stance.

In a May 20 text, O’Donnell shared feedback from Gary Crotty (NASCAR legal), Mike Helton (President Emeritus), and Jim France, indicating a belief that meetings were productive and that a compromise should be sought. O’Donnell expressed his own reservations, questioning how NASCAR’s positions would foster growth and secure a strong rights renewal. Alsten responded with incredulity, stating, "Productive? Insanity. Look at the Amanda (Oliver, Chief Legal Officer) chart – zero wins for the teams." He further lamented, "The draft must reflect a middle position of we are dead in the water – they will sign them but we are fucked moving forward." Prime’s reaction was, "The approach of ‘here is a bit more money, fuck off everywhere else’ is a bold strategy." O’Donnell added that Lesa France Kennedy and others believed this approach was leading them towards a "comfortable 1996, fuck the teams, dictatorship, motorsport, redneck, southern, tiny sport."

Despite these internal concerns, teams were presented with a September 6 deadline to sign the extension agreement, which reportedly contained only one concession for the teams. While initially given one hour, NASCAR eventually extended this to midnight. Prime characterized this as a "gun to the head" offer, a phrase Kessler pressed him on, asking if that was Jim France’s intention. Prime stated he did not know France’s intentions. Thirteen of the 15 Cup Series teams signed by the deadline; 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports did not, leading to the filing of this lawsuit.

Prime acknowledged in a May 20 text to Alsten that he and O’Donnell had advocated for permanent charters to the Board of Directors, but encountered a “brick wall” with Jim France. Ben Kennedy reportedly remained silent, and Gary Crotty conceded on all points. Alsten expressed his disappointment and planned to discuss the matter further. However, Prime consistently maintained that NASCAR never considered revoking charters, noting that two deadlines passed without any charters being reallocated. Kessler probed what would happen if 23XI and Front Row did not sign, to which Prime responded that the charter agreement would expire and their terms would no longer be valid. This line of questioning aimed to establish that NASCAR would, in effect, revoke the charters as they are not evergreen.

The latter part of Wednesday’s proceedings saw Bob Jenkins, owner of Front Row Motorsports, take the stand. Jenkins, often overshadowed in media coverage by Denny Hamlin and Michael Jordan, became the focus. He testified that Front Row Motorsports loses $6.8 million annually and has never been profitable under his ownership, nor does he draw a salary. Jenkins stated he attends approximately a dozen races per year and visits the shop 6-7 times annually.

He detailed a significant increase in operational costs under the NextGen car, with annual spending on car components rising to $4.7 million from $1.8 million with the previous car. A key factor cited was the mandate for parts to be repaired by NASCAR-designated vendors, costing Front Row $30,000 weekly for an undamaged car refurbishment. Jenkins’ motivation for continuing, despite the financial strain, stemmed from his belief in the endeavor and his responsibility to his 150 employees.

Jenkins recounted receiving the “take it or leave it” offer on September 6, 2023, while dining with his parents and being unaware of the impending ultimatum. Upon leaving the restaurant, he discovered numerous missed calls and texts. He described the emotional responses from other owners, including Joe Gibbs, who felt compelled to sign and believed he had let Jenkins down. Jenkins stated, “Not a single owner said, ‘I was happy to sign it.’ Not a single one.” He characterized the final agreement as “backwards,” “insulting,” and akin to “taxation without representation,” asserting that NASCAR wielded excessive control.

While Jenkins found the conceptual framework of the charter system, introduced in 2016, sound, he felt the 2025 iteration lacked necessary refinement. He emphasized that the current situation was not about disparaging the France family, who he acknowledged had made many positive contributions, but that the current charter was a misstep. He concluded, "I think it was a step forward but it wasn’t fair.”

During cross-examination by NASCAR attorney Lawrence Buterman, Jenkins faced questions similar to those posed to Denny Hamlin regarding the alleged hypocrisy of suing NASCAR for imposing non-compete clauses while simultaneously implementing them in driver contracts. Jenkins reiterated that Front Row Motorsports is not a monopoly and drivers have alternative employment options.

Buterman challenged Jenkins’ claims of losses, suggesting profits were potentially being channeled through his other companies. He cited Jenkins’ practice of offering potential sponsors or pay drivers the option to donate to Lakeway Christian Schools, which Jenkins founded, instead of direct payments. Matt Tifft, for instance, paid $2.6 million to race for Front Row in 2020, with an option to donate $500,000 to the school before his season was cut short by health issues. Chandler Smith paid $1.5 million this year for a ride in Front Row’s Truck Series team. Jenkins testified that no sponsor or driver had made such donations.

Buterman also questioned why Front Row pays its drivers only 8.5% of team revenue while contending that NASCAR underpays teams at 25% of sanctioning body revenue. Jenkins differentiated by stating it was “apples and oranges” due to the significant expenses incurred by teams, such as the $350,000 cost of a NextGen car. He retorted, “A basketball doesn’t cost $350,000. You don’t wreck a $350,000 basketball.”

Buterman probed Jenkins’ reported losses, particularly concerning Front Row running five races unsponsored with Long John Silvers branding, a franchise Jenkins owned and had gifted to his sons. The NASCAR lawyer suggested this was a choice made by Jenkins, rather than a necessary cost reduction. Jenkins explained that sponsorship pricing was fixed, and he could not justify offering fewer races for less money to other sponsors like Love’s, as it would undermine his entire business model. Buterman posited that Front Row was seeking more money from NASCAR to compensate for a business that was struggling even before the charter system.

Buterman also accused Jenkins of advocating for smaller fields and eliminating open entries to increase his team’s share of NASCAR revenue. Jenkins defended this by arguing that a more exclusive entry system enhances the value for all participants. He characterized open teams as generally slower and less valuable to the series, with the exception of the Daytona 500. Jenkins’ cross-examination is scheduled to continue on Thursday.