Front Row Motorsports Owner Details Financial Strain as NASCAR Executive Faces Scrutiny in Antitrust Trial

The antitrust trial between 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR continued into its third day, with NASCAR’s Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer, Scott Prime, facing intense questioning, followed by the testimony of Front Row Motorsports owner Bob Jenkins. The proceedings delved into the intricacies of NASCAR’s charter system, intellectual property rights, and the financial realities faced by team owners.

Scott Prime, who spent the latter half of Tuesday and a portion of Wednesday on the witness stand, was subjected to detailed examination by Jeffrey Kessler, the attorney representing 23XI and Front Row. The exchanges occasionally became heated, prompting Kessler to apologize for his raised voice, to which Prime responded with understanding, acknowledging the "passions" involved.

Kessler’s line of questioning initially focused on the "goodwill provision" within the charter agreement. This clause, he argued, functions as an anti-competitive measure, preventing team owners with a 10% stake or more from competing in or owning another racing series without NASCAR’s approval. Owners seeking to leave the Cup Series must also observe a 12-month waiting period before venturing into a different racing discipline. When Prime asserted his belief that the provision was indeed "goodwill," Kessler challenged the terminology, suggesting it was more accurately an "anti-competitive will."

The discussion then shifted to the intellectual property restrictions surrounding the NextGen car. Kessler sought to frame these restrictions as a deliberate tactic by NASCAR to stifle trade and competition, a core assertion of the lawsuit. Evidence presented showed that Prime had previously expressed concerns about the previous car generation (Gen-6) and its "increased risk to NASCAR of copycat series" due to looser intellectual property regulations. These concerns stemmed from the potential for teams to race cars similar to those in the Cup Series in non-NASCAR sanctioned events. Prime, however, maintained that this had "never been an issue with the teams" and that they understood and endorsed the protections offered by the NextGen car design, which included elements of cost containment. Kessler countered by pointing out that under current charter rules, teams do not possess a formal voting mechanism on such matters.

Related News :

• NASCAR’s Charter System: A Decade of Stability, Now Under Legal Scrutiny
• Larson Claims Second NASCAR Cup Title in Overtime Thriller, Hamlin’s Championship Dreams Shattered
• Chris Gabehart Departs Joe Gibbs Racing in Unexpected Strategic Shift
• Richard Childress Considers Legal Recourse Following Unsealed NASCAR Executive Communications
• Bass Pro Shops CEO Pens Scathing Open Letter to NASCAR Denouncing Leadership’s "Shockingly Offensive" Remarks About Richard Childress

Further revelations emerged regarding the negotiations for the 2025 charter extension. An email from Prime to NASCAR executive Ben Phelps on February 10 indicated Prime’s "disappointment" over the race teams’ decision to halt negotiations and instead "recommit our energy to exploring all our options." The teams had presented four key demands: 45% of industry revenue, exemption from the Driver Ambassador Program fees, 30% of new revenue generated from team intellectual property, and permanent charters.

When these demands were not met, internal NASCAR communications revealed contingency plans to address the potential for teams to form a "breakaway series." Options discussed included reducing the number of charters to 32 and reallocating them on a "first come, first serve" basis among existing teams, a strategy Kessler likened to creating scarcity and competition. Another option was a hard deadline for charter renewals, which ultimately materialized on September 6, 2024. A more drastic plan, dubbed "Project Gold Codes," envisioned NASCAR operating the sport vertically, running races independently, and employing its own drivers and cars.

In response to these contingency plans, Phelps emailed Prime, stating, "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 presented this exchange as evidence of NASCAR’s monopolistic behavior, asserting that "Only a monopolist could say this… ‘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, however, clarified that these were merely "Path 1" options and that "Path 2" involved continued efforts to "find a middle ground with the teams," which he argued was the path ultimately pursued. Despite the looming deadline, no new team owners were brought into the fold for the 2025 season.

Prime defended NASCAR’s contingency planning as necessary in case teams formed their own series. When questioned by Kessler about potential venues for such a breakaway series, given NASCAR’s track exclusivity clauses, Prime suggested short tracks and street courses. Kessler dismissed this, highlighting the financial losses NASCAR incurred from the Chicago street race, and emphasizing that the current era was far removed from NASCAR’s origins in 1948. Prime maintained that discussions about "locking up tracks" were related to multi-year scheduling agreements, citing TNT’s interest in the Atlanta Motor Speedway due to its connection with Turner Sports, rather than an attempt to prevent other series from accessing venues. Kessler questioned the necessity of new, multi-year exclusivity clauses for such arrangements.

The court then revisited "The Amanda Chart," a document compiled by NASCAR’s Chief Legal Officer Amanda Oliver, which reportedly indicated only a single "win" for the race teams during negotiations for the charter extension. Internal communications from May 20-21 between Prime, O’Donnell, and Phelps revealed senior leadership’s disagreement with CEO Jim France’s negotiating stance.

An exchange between O’Donnell and Phelps illustrated the tension. O’Donnell recounted a conversation with Gary Crotty and Mike Helton, who believed the meeting was productive and that compromise was achievable. O’Donnell, however, expressed skepticism, questioning how NASCAR’s positions would contribute to growing the sport and securing a favorable rights renewal. Phelps, in turn, described the situation as "insanity," referencing the Oliver chart showing "zero wins for the teams." He further elaborated, "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 characterized the approach as "here is a bit more money, fuck off everywhere else." O’Donnell lamented a perceived "dictatorship" approach reminiscent of an earlier era of NASCAR.

Despite these internal concerns, teams were presented with a September 6 deadline to sign the extension agreement, which offered limited concessions. While NASCAR eventually extended the deadline to midnight, 13 of the 15 Cup Series teams signed. 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports did not, subsequently filing the lawsuit. Prime acknowledged in a May 20 text message to Phelps that he and O’Donnell had "put our best foot forward" in advocating for permanent charters with the Board of Directors, but encountered a "brick wall" with Jim France.

Prime repeatedly stated that NASCAR had not considered revoking charters, a point supported by the fact that no charters were issued to other parties after two deadlines passed. However, Kessler pressed on the consequences for teams that refused to sign. Prime stated that the charter agreement would simply "expire" and their "terms would no longer be valid," implying that NASCAR could indeed reclaim the charters as they are not "evergreen."

The proceedings then shifted to Bob Jenkins, owner of Front Row Motorsports, who took center stage for his testimony. Jenkins, who is less publicly prominent than Denny Hamlin or Michael Jordan, revealed that he personally loses $6.8 million annually and has never achieved profitability with his team. He also stated that he does not draw a salary as an owner. His involvement is limited, attending only a dozen races and visiting the shop 6-7 times a year.

Jenkins highlighted the significant increase in operational costs under the NextGen car. He now spends $4.7 million annually on car components, a stark contrast to the $1.8 million spent under the previous car generation. A key factor, he explained, is the requirement to send repaired parts back to NASCAR-mandated vendors, costing approximately $30,000 per week to refurbish an undamaged car. When asked why he continues to invest in a losing venture, Jenkins responded with conviction, "I just believe in it. It’s why I feel so strongly about changing this system. There are 150 employees at that race shop who believe in me to make this work."

Jenkins recounted his experience on September 6, the day of the "take it or leave it" offer, stating he was at dinner with his parents without cell service. Upon leaving, he found numerous missed calls and texts. He described the emotional reactions of other owners, including Joe Gibbs, who felt pressured to sign and believed he had let Jenkins down. "Not a single owner said, ‘I was happy to sign it.’ Not a single one," Jenkins stated.

He characterized the final agreement as "backwards" and "insulting," comparing NASCAR’s governance approach to "taxation without representation." While acknowledging the conceptual soundness of the charter system introduced in 2016, Jenkins felt the 2025 iteration lacked necessary refinement. He expressed a desire for NASCAR teams to become valuable assets, stating, "If we ever do get this right, NASCAR teams will be valuable." He clarified that his criticism was not directed at the France family’s overall contributions but specifically at the charter agreement.

During cross-examination by NASCAR attorney Lawrence Buterman, Jenkins faced questions mirroring those posed to Denny Hamlin regarding the apparent contradiction of suing NASCAR over non-compete clauses while implementing them in his own driver contracts. Jenkins reiterated that, unlike NASCAR, he is not a monopoly and drivers have choices in where they sign.

Buterman questioned Jenkins’ claims of financial losses, suggesting he was concealing profits through other companies. He cited instances where Jenkins offered potential sponsors or pay drivers the option to donate to Lakeway Christian Schools, which Jenkins founded. For example, Matt Tifft reportedly had the option to pay $500,000 to the school in 2020 before a health issue ended his season. Chandler Smith paid $1.5 million this year to race for Front Row’s Truck Series team. Jenkins testified that, to date, no sponsor or driver has donated to Lakeway.

Buterman also queried why Front Row pays its drivers only 8.5% of team revenue, contrasting it with NASCAR’s alleged underpayment of teams at 25% of sanctioning body revenue. Jenkins defended this by calling it "apples and oranges," emphasizing the significant expenses incurred by teams, such as the $350,000 cost of a NextGen car.

Further scrutiny was applied to Jenkins’ reported losses, particularly concerning the decision to run the Long John Silvers sponsored car for five races without primary sponsorship. Long John Silvers is a franchise Jenkins owns and has gifted to his sons. Buterman suggested this was a choice to run unsponsored rather than accepting a lesser deal. Jenkins explained that the sponsorship rate was fixed, and reducing it for those five races would have undermined his ability to negotiate higher rates with other sponsors like Love’s, potentially unraveling his business model.

Buterman concluded his questioning by suggesting that Front Row was seeking increased financial compensation from NASCAR to offset a business that was already losing money prior to the charter system. He also accused Jenkins of advocating for smaller fields and eliminating open entries to increase his team’s share of NASCAR revenue. Jenkins countered that a more exclusive entry point elevates the value for all participants within the system, noting that open teams generally serve as "field fillers" that "do not add value" to the series, with the exception of the Daytona 500. Jenkins’ cross-examination is scheduled to continue on Thursday.

💬 Tinggalkan Komentar dengan Facebook

Author Profile

rifan muazin

Latest entries

• Nascar CupJanuary 2, 2026Front Row Motorsports Owner Details Financial Strain as NASCAR Executive Faces Scrutiny in Antitrust Trial
• Nascar CupJanuary 1, 2026NASCAR’s Hottest Collectibles: Lionel Racing Unveils the Top-Selling Diecasts of 2025 Season
• Nascar CupJanuary 1, 2026NASCAR Faces Scrutiny Over Financial Practices as Teams Push Back in Court
• Nascar CupJanuary 1, 2026NASCAR and 23XI Racing Clash Over Courtroom Presence of Key Figures as Antitrust Trial Looms