Landmark Antitrust Trial Between NASCAR Teams and Sanctioning Body Concludes in Surprise Settlement

A contentious antitrust trial that captivated the motorsports world and threatened to reshape the future of stock car racing has officially concluded, not with a jury verdict, but with a surprising settlement between 23XI Racing, Front Row Motorsports, and NASCAR. The dramatic turn of events on Day 9 brought an abrupt end to weeks of intense legal battles waged within a North Carolina courtroom, where allegations of monopolistic practices and unfair competition were laid bare.

The trial, which had meticulously chronicled key moments and testimonies over nine days, saw legal teams for the plaintiffs, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, meticulously build their case against NASCAR. Their central argument revolved around the assertion that NASCAR, as the dominant governing body in stock car racing, had engaged in anti-competitive behavior that stifled growth and unfairly disadvantaged team owners.

Day 9: A Swift Resolution

The unexpected settlement on the final day of the trial brought immediate closure. The jury was dismissed, and joint statements were released by all parties involved, signaling a commitment to moving forward. While the financial terms of the agreement remain undisclosed, the outcome ensures the continued leadership of the France family at the helm of NASCAR. Crucially, charters that had been central to the dispute were returned to 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports as part of the resolution. The agreement also paves the way for the implementation of permanent or evergreen charters, a long-sought goal for many team owners.

Related News :

Day 8: The Teams Rest Their Case, NASCAR Begins Defense

The preceding day saw 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports conclude their presentation of evidence, with NASCAR then commencing its defense. A pivotal figure on the stand was NASCAR Chief Financial Officer Greg Motto, who spent considerable time detailing the $400 million in distributions made to the France family trust. Jeffrey Kessler, lead counsel for the teams, argued that NASCAR possessed the financial capacity to distribute $720 million annually to teams, a figure far exceeding the $431 million allocated for 2025. Motto, however, contended that such an increase would have jeopardized the financial stability of the sport.

Kessler also highlighted NASCAR’s $544 million revenue from the sale of the Auto Club Speedway land, suggesting these funds could have been allocated to team payments rather than debt reduction stemming from the 2019 International Speedway Corporation merger. He characterized the financial maneuvers as merely reallocating funds within the France family’s holdings.

NASCAR’s defense began with John Probst, Senior Vice President of Innovation and Racing Development. His testimony focused on the development of the Next Gen car and underscored NASCAR’s perspective on what they deemed a "reckless" spending problem among teams. NASCAR attempted to draw parallels to the historical "American Open Wheel Split" to bolster its argument against the formation of rival series, though these lines of questioning were ultimately objected to and sustained by the judge.

During cross-examination, Probst acknowledged that NASCAR would likely not permit the Next Gen car’s use in non-NASCAR series, though he allowed for the possibility of discussion. NASCAR CEO Jim France also concluded his testimony, expressing reservations about the concept of permanent charters. "I don’t know how you can set anything in this changing world we’re in as permanent," France stated. "I’m just not comfortable making agreements that go on forever."

Day 7: Evasive Testimony and Animated Defenses

Day 7 was marked by the testimony of prominent figures, including NASCAR CEO Jim France, NASCAR Commissioner Steve Phelps, and veteran team owner Richard Childress. Both Phelps and France frequently responded to inquiries with phrases such as "I do not remember," drawing commentary from Kessler regarding their apparent lack of recall. France reiterated his opposition to permanent charters, a stance he has consistently maintained.

Phelps was questioned about an email he allegedly sent to Rick Hendrick, stating, "we wish we could give you permanent charters but Jim doesn’t want that." The Commissioner could not recall the exchange. He also addressed NASCAR’s concerns regarding the Superstar Racing Experience (SRX), explaining that NBC’s executive producer, Sam Flood, had expressed frustration over SRX causing market confusion and its visual similarities to NASCAR. Phelps also asserted that the Next Gen car was the "safest in motorsports," a claim that drew a noticeable reaction from drivers present, particularly in light of Kurt Busch’s career-ending concussion in 2022.

Regarding Furniture Row Racing’s closure in 2017, a year after winning the championship, Phelps cited significant expenditures, including a $3 million technical alliance with Joe Gibbs Racing that later escalated to $10 million.

Richard Childress’s testimony became animated when discussing previously unsealed messages from NASCAR leadership that disparaged him. On the stand, Childress affirmed his support for permanent charters. He was questioned about discussions with former driver Bobby Hillin Jr. regarding a potential acquisition of RCR shares and a third charter, a deal that ultimately fell through due to a lack of funding. Childress’s assertion that RCR had maintained positive EBITA for 55 years, despite relying on other businesses to subsidize NASCAR operations, agitated him, as he believed it violated a non-disclosure agreement.

Day 6: Economic Expert Calculates Damages and Analyzes Competition

The second week of the trial saw economist Edward Snyder present his findings on behalf of the teams. Snyder testified that NASCAR had actively created barriers to competition, hindering the rise of rival stock car racing leagues. He argued that NASCAR was compensating teams below market value for their participation, citing venue exclusivity, restrictions on competing in other series, and limitations on the use of the Next Gen car as examples of anti-competitive practices. Snyder calculated total damages of approximately $364.7 million for 23XI and FRM, 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 accuracy during cross-examination.

Day 5: Michael Jordan and Heather Gibbs Take the Stand

NBA legend and 23XI Racing co-owner Michael Jordan testified for an hour, describing his ownership as being "100 feet up" but maintaining close attention to the sport as a lifelong fan. Jordan emphasized his significant investment in NASCAR and stated that acquiring a third charter was a strategic move to enhance the team’s championship prospects. He drew parallels to the NBA, where league and players share responsibility for growth on a 50/50 basis, advocating for a similar partnership model in NASCAR, where teams and the sanctioning body should be "equal partners." Jordan also addressed NASCAR’s portrayal of his financial advisor, Curtis Polk, as a litigant with no genuine interest in racing.

Heather Gibbs, daughter-in-law of Joe Gibbs Racing founder Joe Gibbs, testified about the "take-it-or-leave-it" deadline imposed by NASCAR for the 2025 Charter Agreement. She described the agreement as having grammatical issues and lacking guaranteed broadcast revenue. Gibbs recounted Joe Gibbs’s plea to NASCAR CEO Jim France, "Don’t do this to us!" France’s response, "If I wake up and I have 20 charters, I have 20 charters. If I have 30, I have 30," underscored the high-stakes nature of the negotiations.

NASCAR President Steve O’Donnell’s testimony also continued, reiterating concerns about SRX and its perceived threat to NASCAR’s market position and broadcast revenue. He highlighted instances where drivers like Chase Elliott competed in SRX with NASCAR-associated sponsors and liveries, which was viewed as alarming. O’Donnell also discussed the potential value increase of charters, citing their growth from 2016 to the present. Judge Bell cautioned NASCAR that "growing the sport" was not a valid defense and could be construed as a self-admission.

Day 4: SRX’s "Threat" to NASCAR

The Superstar Racing Experience (SRX) emerged as a central point of contention on Day 4. Previously unsealed messages revealed NASCAR leadership viewed SRX as a direct threat, taking issue with drivers and team owners participating in the series founded by Tony Stewart. Team attorney Jeffrey Kessler argued that NASCAR’s actions to stifle SRX demonstrated a pattern of monopolistic behavior designed to harm competitors.

NASCAR President Steve O’Donnell was questioned about these messages, admitting that NASCAR’s decision to bring back short tracks like Bowman Gray and North Wilkesboro was partly motivated by SRX’s potential to compete on those circuits. He also confirmed that NASCAR prevented Speedway Motorsports from hosting SRX events. O’Donnell explained that NASCAR was negotiating a new broadcast rights agreement and saw SRX’s growing resemblance to NASCAR as a potential impediment to securing maximum TV revenue for teams and tracks. He also cited intellectual property infringement concerns as a reason for investigating SRX, while acknowledging the disruptive potential of entities like LIV Golf in challenging established sports leagues.

Internal communications revealed that while NASCAR CEO Jim France appeared resistant to new financial models for teams, O’Donnell had expressed hopes for generational change within NASCAR’s leadership. Kessler suggested France acted as a "brick wall" in negotiations, a characterization O’Donnell did not fully accept. O’Donnell also disclosed NASCAR’s $55 million loss over three years for the Chicago Street Course, deeming it a strategic investment to secure Amazon as a broadcast partner. Similar financial losses were reported for racing in Mexico City, which was also considered important for Amazon.

Front Row Motorsports owner Bob Jenkins also testified, facing cross-examination regarding cost figures for Cup Series cars. NASCAR attorneys presented documents suggesting FRM’s expenditures were lower than Jenkins’s claims. Discussions also touched upon a proposed FRM/23XI merger, with NASCAR attorneys attempting to draw parallels between those failed negotiations and the recent charter agreement discussions. Jenkins’s text message stating, "We can’t keep negotiating this forever," was cited as evidence of the urgency surrounding the charter agreement. Judge Bell expressed concern about the trial’s pace, urging both sides to streamline proceedings and avoid redundancy.

Day 3: Prime Grilled, Jenkins Testifies

NASCAR Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer Scott Prime faced further cross-examination, with exchanges with team attorney Jeffrey Kessler becoming heated at times. Kessler focused on the "goodwill provision" in the 2025 Charter Agreement, which restricts team owners from competing in or owning other racing series without NASCAR approval. He termed this an "anti-competitive will." Kessler also argued that intellectual property restrictions on the Next Gen car served to restrain trade. He cited an email from NASCAR Commissioner Steve Phelps, which Kessler characterized as a "take it or leave it" offer indicative of monopolistic power.

Prime was questioned about NASCAR’s exclusivity agreements with tracks, asserting that rival series could race at other venues. Kessler also presented the "Amanda (Oliver) Chart," illustrating the teams’ limited success in negotiations with NASCAR, with only one of 22 requests being met. Prime acknowledged the September 6 deadline as a "gun to the head" offer, and Kessler highlighted Jim France’s unwillingness to grant permanent charters, despite Prime’s efforts.

Following Prime’s testimony, Bob Jenkins, owner of Front Row Motorsports, took the stand. Jenkins stated that FRM loses $6.8 million annually and has never been profitable, with him drawing no salary. He detailed the increased costs associated with the Next Gen car compared to its predecessor. Jenkins expressed his strong belief in the need for systemic change and his commitment to his employees. He described the September 6 deadline as "insulting" and "backwards," recounting the emotional pressure on team owners, including Joe Gibbs, to sign the agreement. Jenkins also addressed the comparison between non-compete clauses in NASCAR contracts and those in driver agreements, arguing that drivers have more options. Judge Bell subsequently admonished NASCAR attorneys for violating court orders.

Day 2: Hamlin’s Tense Cross-Examination and Prime Under Fire

Denny Hamlin endured a contentious cross-examination by NASCAR attorneys, repeatedly asserting, "We’re not a monopoly like you are." Hamlin detailed his personal frustrations with NASCAR leadership, dating back to the 2022 banquet, where he felt a fundamental disagreement existed regarding the financial realities of the sport. He argued that cost-cutting measures were not synonymous with growth and that halving operational costs was unrealistic for teams. Hamlin’s annual earnings of $14 million as a driver for Joe Gibbs Racing were also revealed.

Scott Prime faced further scrutiny regarding internal disputes over charter terms and Jim France’s perceived determination to impose specific conditions on teams. Unsealed communications suggested France was a significant obstacle to teams securing more favorable terms. Prime was also questioned about NASCAR’s efforts to prevent breakaway series and its "Project Gold Codes" contingency plan in anticipation of potential team boycotts or failure to sign the charter agreement.

Day 1: Opening Statements and Hamlin’s Initial Testimony

The trial commenced with jury selection, followed by opening statements. Denny Hamlin, co-owner of 23XI Racing and a prominent driver, was the first witness. His initial testimony, lasting approximately 40 minutes, focused on the challenges teams face in competing with NASCAR for sponsorships and employees. Both sides presented their core arguments, with NASCAR attorney John E. Stephenson framing the lawsuit as an attack on the charter system by teams unwilling to sign the new agreement. Kessler aimed to establish a pattern of anti-competitive strategy orchestrated by Jim France, presenting text messages from NASCAR leadership as evidence.

The resolution of this antitrust trial marks a significant moment for NASCAR. While the specifics of the settlement remain private, the agreement to implement permanent charters and the return of contested charters suggest a compromise that could foster greater stability and trust within the sport moving forward. The proceedings, however, have undeniably shed light on the complex and often contentious relationship between NASCAR’s leadership and its team owners.

💬 Tinggalkan Komentar dengan Facebook

Author Profile

rifan muazin

Latest entries

Nascar CupJanuary 18, 2026Landmark Antitrust Trial Between NASCAR Teams and Sanctioning Body Concludes in Surprise Settlement
Nascar CupJanuary 17, 2026The Next Wave of NASCAR Cup Series Talent: A 2026 Outlook
Nascar CupJanuary 17, 2026NASCAR, 23XI Racing, and Front Row Motorsports Forge Path to Stability with Landmark Settlement
Nascar CupJanuary 17, 2026NTSB Outlines Lengthy Investigation into Fatal Greg Biffle Plane Crash

Or check our Popular Categories...

Or check our Popular Categories...