Landmark Antitrust Trial Between 23XI Racing, Front Row Motorsports, and NASCAR Concludes in Surprise Settlement

A high-stakes antitrust trial, which threatened to reshape the landscape of professional stock car racing, concluded abruptly with a surprise settlement between 23XI Racing, Front Row Motorsports, and NASCAR. The protracted legal battle, which unfolded in a North Carolina courtroom over nine days, centered on allegations of monopolistic practices and anticompetitive behavior by NASCAR against its team owners. The agreement, announced on the final day of proceedings, saw the jury dismissed and joint statements released by all parties, effectively ending the legal dispute without a public declaration of financial terms.

The core of the lawsuit revolved around the charter system, a mechanism introduced by NASCAR in 2016 to provide teams with a guaranteed starting spot in Cup Series races and a share of broadcast revenue. 23XI Racing, co-owned by NBA legend Michael Jordan and NASCAR driver Denny Hamlin, and Front Row Motorsports, led by Bob Jenkins, argued that NASCAR had leveraged its dominant position in the sport to stifle competition and unfairly benefit itself and its affiliated entities.

Key moments throughout the trial illuminated the deep-seated tensions and differing perspectives between the sanctioning body and a segment of its premier teams.

Day 9: Settlement Reached, Trial Concluded

Related News :

The trial’s dramatic conclusion came with the announcement of a settlement, bringing an end to the legal proceedings. While the financial specifics of the agreement remain undisclosed, it was confirmed that permanent or "evergreen" charters will be implemented going forward, a significant concession sought by the plaintiff teams. The France family, who have overseen NASCAR for generations, will continue to manage the sport. As part of the settlement, charters previously held by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports were to be returned.

Day 8: Plaintiff’s Case Concludes, NASCAR Presents Defense

The day saw 23XI and Front Row Motorsports rest their case after presenting a series of witnesses and evidence. NASCAR then began its defense, calling its Chief Financial Officer, Greg Motto, to the stand. Motto testified about the $400 million in distributions to the France family trust, asserting that the $720 million in charter payments proposed by the teams would have financially crippled the sport. He argued that NASCAR’s financial reserves were crucial for reinvestment and managing the sport’s infrastructure, including debt incurred from the 2019 merger with International Speedway Corporation.

Conversely, Jeffrey Kessler, representing the teams, highlighted NASCAR’s $544 million profit from the sale of the Auto Club Speedway land, suggesting these funds could have been allocated to teams instead of debt repayment. Kessler characterized NASCAR’s financial maneuvering as akin to moving money within the same familial entity.

NASCAR’s defense also featured testimony from John Probst, senior vice president of innovation and racing development. Probst focused on the development of the Next Gen car, arguing that teams exhibited a "reckless" spending problem. An attempt to draw parallels with the historical American Open Wheel Split to argue against competing series was ultimately blocked by the judge.

NASCAR CEO Jim France also concluded his testimony, expressing reservations about the concept of permanent charters, stating, "I don’t know how you can set anything in this changing world we’re in as permanent. I’m just not comfortable making agreements that go on forever.”

Day 7: Key Figures Testify Amidst Animated Exchanges

NASCAR CEO Jim France, NASCAR Commissioner Steve Phelps, and veteran team owner Richard Childress took the stand, providing significant testimony. Both Phelps and France frequently responded with phrases like "I do not remember," drawing commentary from Kessler on their apparent lack of recall. France reiterated his stance against permanent charters.

Phelps was questioned about an email concerning permanent charters and his recollection of communications regarding the Superstar Racing Experience (SRX) series. He stated that SRX caused marketplace confusion and that NASCAR was frustrated by the use of similar sponsors and liveries by SRX participants. Phelps also controversially declared the Next Gen car as the "safest in motorsports," a statement that elicited a visible reaction from drivers in the courtroom, particularly in light of Kurt Busch’s career-ending concussion in 2022.

Regarding the 2017 championship-winning Furniture Row Racing’s demise, Phelps explained that the team’s significant expenses, including a substantial technical alliance fee increase from Joe Gibbs Racing post-championship, contributed to their financial struggles.

Richard Childress, whose public criticism of NASCAR leadership had surfaced prior to his testimony, asserted his desire for permanent charters. He was compelled to discuss a failed business proposal involving former NASCAR driver Bobby Hillin Jr. to acquire shares in Richard Childress Racing (RCR), which included the possibility of purchasing a third charter. Childress expressed agitation over the unsealing of his company’s financial information, emphasizing that RCR’s profitability relied on diversified business interests beyond Cup Series teams.

Day 6: Economic Expert Calculates Damages, Analyzes Competition Claims

Economist Edward Snyder, testifying for the teams, presented his analysis of NASCAR’s market practices. Snyder argued that NASCAR had erected "barriers" to competition and was compensating teams below market value. He cited venue exclusivity, restrictions on other racing series participation, and limitations on the Next Gen car’s use as evidence of anticompetitive behavior. Snyder calculated total damages for 23XI and FRM at approximately $364.7 million, with $215.8 million attributed to 23XI and $148.9 million to FRM. He drew comparisons to Formula 1’s Concorde Agreement. NASCAR’s legal team challenged Snyder’s expertise and the accuracy of his findings during cross-examination.

Day 5: Michael Jordan and Heather Gibbs Take the Stand

NBA legend Michael Jordan, co-owner of 23XI Racing, testified about his investment in NASCAR. He described his ownership style as hands-off in day-to-day operations but deeply invested in the team’s success and a lifelong fan of the sport. Jordan explained 23XI’s acquisition of a third charter as a strategic move to enhance their championship prospects. He drew parallels to the NBA’s revenue-sharing model, advocating for a more equitable partnership between NASCAR and its teams, stating, "If you share responsibility, the healthiness of the sport can grow." Jordan also highlighted the necessity for someone to challenge NASCAR’s practices. NASCAR’s attorneys attempted to portray Jordan’s financial advisor, Curtis Polk, as the instigator of the lawsuit, focused solely on litigation rather than the sport itself.

Heather Gibbs, daughter-in-law of Joe Gibbs Racing founder Joe Gibbs, testified about the intense pressure surrounding the September 6th deadline for teams to accept the new charter agreement. She described the offer as a "take-it-or-leave-it" ultimatum, with little time for review. Gibbs recounted her father-in-law Joe Gibbs’ desperate plea to NASCAR CEO Jim France, "Don’t do this to us!" France’s reported response, indicating indifference to the number of charters ultimately signed, underscored the perceived high-stakes nature of the negotiations.

NASCAR President Steve O’Donnell also continued his testimony, reiterating concerns about the SRX series and its potential to confuse the marketplace and impact broadcast rights negotiations. He cited an example of Chase Elliott participating in SRX with NAPA sponsorship as particularly alarming. O’Donnell’s claims about SRX’s potential return were reportedly met with skepticism by sources close to the series. He also highlighted the increasing value of charters, citing them as indicators of confidence in the sport’s future, despite the ongoing litigation. Judge Bell cautioned NASCAR that "growing the sport" was not a valid defense and could be interpreted as an admission.

Day 4: SRX’s Perceived Threat to NASCAR

The focus shifted to the now-defunct Superstar Racing Experience (SRX) series, with previously unsealed messages revealing NASCAR leadership’s perception of SRX as a competitive threat. Team attorney Jeffrey Kessler aimed to demonstrate that NASCAR actively worked to stifle SRX, potentially supporting the antitrust claims. NASCAR President Steve O’Donnell testified about the series’ issues with SRX, including its visual resemblance to NASCAR and potential interference with broadcast rights negotiations. He acknowledged NASCAR’s efforts to prevent SRX events at Speedway Motorsports venues and noted that NASCAR’s decision to reinstate short tracks like Bowman Gray and North Wilkesboro was partly motivated by SRX’s potential presence. O’Donnell also discussed internal discussions about a "legacy mindset" within NASCAR’s board inhibiting growth and referred to Jim France as a "brick wall" in negotiations. He also revealed significant financial losses incurred by NASCAR on initiatives like the Chicago Street Course and racing in Mexico City, justifying them as strategic investments to secure broadcast partners like Amazon.

Front Row Motorsports owner Bob Jenkins also faced cross-examination, with NASCAR attorneys presenting documents that appeared to contradict his claims about the cost of racing. Discussions also touched upon a proposed FRM/23XI merger from several years prior, with NASCAR attorneys attempting to draw parallels to the charter negotiations. Judge Bell expressed concern about the trial’s pace, urging both sides to streamline proceedings and avoid redundancy for the jury.

Day 3: Executive Testimony and Team Owner’s Perspective

NASCAR’s Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer, Scott Prime, faced intense questioning for a second day. Kessler focused on the "goodwill provision" in the charter agreement, which restricted team owners from competing in other series without NASCAR’s approval, labeling it as "anti-competitive will." Prime attempted to counter claims of intellectual property restrictions on the Next Gen car as a tool to restrain trade. He also addressed NASCAR’s exclusivity agreements with tracks. Kessler presented the "Amanda (Oliver) Chart," illustrating a perceived imbalance in negotiation outcomes for teams, with only one "win" out of 22 team requests. Prime’s previous acknowledgment of the September 6th deadline as a "gun to the head" offer was seized upon by Kessler.

Bob Jenkins, owner of Front Row Motorsports, testified about his team’s persistent financial losses, stating he loses $6.8 million annually and has never turned a profit. He detailed the increased costs associated with the Next Gen car compared to its predecessor. Jenkins expressed his commitment to the sport and his employees, despite the financial strain. He described the September 6th deadline as "insulting" and "backwards," recounting the emotional toll on team owners, including Joe Gibbs, who felt compelled to sign the agreement. Jenkins also addressed the comparison of non-compete clauses in his driver contracts to NASCAR’s restrictions, arguing that drivers have options for employment. Judge Bell reprimanded NASCAR attorneys for violating court orders during the day’s proceedings.

Day 2: Driver and Executive Under Scrutiny

Denny Hamlin endured a contentious cross-examination, repeatedly stating, "We’re not a monopoly like you are." He recounted personal frustrations with Jim France, dating back to a 2022 banquet, where France allegedly attributed NASCAR’s problems to excessive team spending. Hamlin countered that cost-cutting alone was not a sustainable growth strategy. His annual earnings of $14 million as a driver for Joe Gibbs Racing were also discussed.

NASCAR’s Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer, Scott Prime, was questioned about internal disagreements regarding charter terms and Jim France’s apparent resistance to concessions. Communications suggesting France was a roadblock in negotiations were presented. Prime was also questioned about NASCAR’s strategies to prevent a potential breakaway series, drawing parallels to historical splits in open-wheel racing. He described "Project Gold Codes" as a contingency plan for potential boycotts or non-compliance with the charter agreement.

Day 1: Opening Statements and Initial Testimony

The trial commenced with jury selection, followed by opening statements. Denny Hamlin was the first witness, testifying for approximately 40 minutes before NASCAR’s legal team began their cross-examination. Hamlin emphasized the challenges teams face in competing with NASCAR for sponsorships and employees. NASCAR attorney John E. Stephenson framed the lawsuit as an attack on the charter system, initiated after teams refused to sign the new agreement. Kessler, representing the teams, aimed to establish an anticompetitive strategy orchestrated by Jim France, presenting text messages from NASCAR leadership as evidence.

The settlement brings an end to a trial that highlighted significant structural and financial disagreements within NASCAR, with the implications of permanent charters and a more equitable partnership between the sanctioning body and its teams now poised to shape the future of the sport.

💬 Tinggalkan Komentar dengan Facebook

Author Profile

rifan muazin

Latest entries

Nascar CupJanuary 11, 2026Superstar Racing Experience Emerges as Key Factor in NASCAR Antitrust Trial
Nascar CupJanuary 11, 2026Tragedy Strikes NASCAR: Michael Annett, Accomplished Driver and Daytona Winner, Passes Away at 39
Nascar CupJanuary 10, 2026Jordan and Gibbs Take Center Stage as NASCAR Antitrust Trial Enters Critical Phase
Nascar CupJanuary 10, 2026Future Cup Series Contenders Emerge: A Look at NASCAR’s Top Young Talent for 2026

Or check our Popular Categories...

Or check our Popular Categories...