Landmark NASCAR Antitrust Trial Concludes with Unexpected Settlement: Key Moments and Implications

The protracted legal battle between NASCAR and two prominent race teams, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, has reached an unexpected conclusion with a settlement, bringing an end to a trial that scrutinized the inner workings of American stock car racing. The courtroom drama, which unfolded over several days in North Carolina, promised to reshape the future of the sport, and its resolution now shifts focus to the agreed-upon terms and their long-term impact.

Day 9: Settlement Reached, Trial Concludes
In a dramatic turn of events, the antitrust trial between 23XI Racing, Front Row Motorsports, and NASCAR concluded with a settlement. The jury was dismissed following joint statements from all parties involved, signaling an end to the legal proceedings. While the specific financial terms of the agreement remain undisclosed, the outcome ensures the continued leadership of the France family in governing NASCAR. Crucially, charters that had been taken from 23XI and Front Row Motorsports are to be returned to the teams as part of the settlement. This development brings a close to a chapter that saw significant legal and public scrutiny of NASCAR’s business practices.

Day 8: Teams Rest Case, NASCAR Presents Defense
Related News :

Prior to the settlement, the trial saw 23XI and Front Row Motorsports conclude their presentation of evidence. NASCAR’s Chief Financial Officer, Greg Motto, testified regarding the distribution of approximately $400 million to the France family trust. Jeffrey Kessler, representing the teams, argued that NASCAR could have allocated an additional $289 million annually for charter payments beyond the projected $431 million for 2025, a figure Motto countered would lead to the sport’s financial ruin. Kessler also raised questions about the $544 million generated from the sale of the Auto Club Speedway land, suggesting these funds could have been directed towards team payments rather than debt reduction from the 2019 International Speedway Corporation merger. He posited that NASCAR and the France family trust were essentially reallocating internal funds.

Following the teams’ case, NASCAR began its defense. John Probst, NASCAR’s Senior Vice President of Innovation and Racing Development, testified regarding the development of the Next Gen car and highlighted what he described as a "reckless" spending problem among teams. Attempts to introduce evidence about the American Open Wheel Split as a cautionary tale against competing series were objected to by the judge and sustained. In cross-examination, Probst acknowledged that while NASCAR would "discuss" the possibility, he could not definitively state that teams would be permitted to use the Next Gen car in non-NASCAR series. 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: Evasive Testimony and Animated Exchanges
Day 7 featured significant testimony from key NASCAR figures, including CEO Jim France, Commissioner Steve Phelps, and veteran team owner Richard Childress. Both Phelps and France frequently responded to questions with phrases like "I do not remember," drawing commentary from Kessler about the apparent lack of recall. France reiterated his opposition to permanent charters. Phelps was unable to recall an email to Rick Hendrick suggesting Jim France’s reluctance to grant permanent charters.

Phelps addressed NASCAR’s concerns regarding the Superstar Racing Experience (SRX) series, stating that NBC’s executive producer had complained about SRX causing marketplace confusion and that NASCAR owners were competing in a series with similar branding. When questioned about the career-ending concussion suffered by Kurt Busch in 2022, Phelps’ assertion that the Next Gen car was the "safest in motorsports" was met with visible reactions from drivers present. Regarding the dissolution of the 2017 championship-winning Furniture Row Racing team, Phelps explained that their substantial expenditures, including a $3 million technical alliance with Joe Gibbs Racing that later increased to $10 million post-championship, contributed to their financial struggles.

Jim France’s testimony was marked by his repeated claims of not recalling specific communications and emails. He did not definitively deny a statement attributed to him by Heather Gibbs regarding the potential return of 20 charters. His compensation from NASCAR was also a subject of inquiry.

Richard Childress’s testimony came amidst recent revelations of internal NASCAR communications disparaging him. On the stand, Childress affirmed his support for permanent charters. He was questioned by NASCAR’s attorney about past discussions with former driver Bobby Hillin Jr. concerning the potential sale of RCR shares and a third charter. Under judicial order, Childress confirmed these discussions, explaining the deal fell through due to a lack of funds from Hillin’s group. He also emphasized that RCR had maintained profitability with a positive EBITA throughout its 55-year history, attributing its financial stability to businesses beyond its NASCAR Cup teams, a point he felt violated an NDA. Following Childress’s testimony, 23XI/FRM lawyers requested disclosure of documents related to Hillin’s claims.

Day 6: Economic Expert Calculates Damages
The second week of the trial focused heavily on economist Edward Snyder, who testified as an expert witness for the teams. Snyder characterized NASCAR’s actions as creating "barriers" to competition and argued that the organization was compensating teams below market value. He cited examples of alleged anti-competitive practices, including venue exclusivity, restrictions on participation in other series, and limitations on the use of the Next Gen car. 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 parallels to Formula 1’s Concorde Agreement. NASCAR’s legal team challenged Snyder’s expertise and the accuracy of his analysis during cross-examination.

Day 5: High-Profile Testimony from Jordan and Gibbs
NBA legend Michael Jordan, co-owner of 23XI Racing, testified for an hour, describing his ownership role as being "100 feet up" but maintaining close attention to team performance as a lifelong fan. He emphasized his investment in the sport and his pursuit of success, explaining the acquisition of a third charter as a move to enhance championship prospects. Jordan drew parallels to the NBA’s 50/50 revenue-sharing model, advocating for a more equitable partnership between teams and NASCAR. He stated that the teams sought closer to a 45% share of revenues. Jordan’s testimony was less contentious than that of Denny Hamlin, with Jordan asserting, "Someone had to step forward to challenge NASCAR." NASCAR’s legal team attempted to portray Jordan’s financial advisor, Curtis Polk, as the instigator, citing a private conversation where Polk allegedly described the racing as "boring as shit."

Heather Gibbs, daughter-in-law of Joe Gibbs Racing founder Joe Gibbs, testified about the "take-it-or-leave-it" deadline imposed by NASCAR on September 6th, which she described as feeling like a "gun to the head." She highlighted the short timeframe for review and signing the agreement, noting grammatical errors and a lack of guaranteed broadcast revenue. Gibbs recounted Joe Gibbs’ plea to NASCAR CEO Jim France, "Don’t do this to us!", and France’s response indicating he would accept whatever number of charters remained.

NASCAR President Steve O’Donnell’s testimony continued, focusing on NASCAR’s objections to SRX, including concerns over driver Chase Elliott’s participation in a NAPA-sponsored car. O’Donnell claimed SRX was poised for a return, a statement contradicted by sources close to the series. He also presented the increase in charter values as evidence of the sport’s health, despite ongoing litigation. Judge Bell cautioned NASCAR that "growing the sport" might not serve as a valid defense and could be interpreted as an admission. The trial was also noted to be exceeding its scheduled timeline, with the potential presence of Roger Penske as a witness still under consideration.

Day 4: SRX and the ‘Threat’ to NASCAR’s Hegemony
The now-defunct Superstar Racing Experience (SRX) took center stage on Day 4, with previously unsealed messages revealing NASCAR’s perception of SRX as a threat. Team attorney Jeffrey Kessler argued that NASCAR’s actions to stifle SRX demonstrated an intent to harm competition and maintain its monopoly. NASCAR President Steve O’Donnell was questioned about messages indicating NASCAR’s issues with SRX drivers and owners participating in Tony Stewart’s series. Evidence suggested that NASCAR’s decision to reinstate short tracks like Bowman Gray and North Wilkesboro was partly motivated by SRX’s potential to compete on those venues.

O’Donnell explained NASCAR’s opposition to SRX hosting events at Speedway Motorsports tracks, citing ongoing broadcast rights negotiations and the visual similarities between SRX and NASCAR. He expressed frustration that drivers and teams appeared to be "not all in" on NASCAR due to their SRX involvement. While claiming IP infringement concerns as the reason for legal review of SRX, O’Donnell’s testimony suggested underlying fears of a rival series challenging NASCAR’s dominance, drawing parallels to the emergence of LIV Golf.

Internal discussions within NASCAR regarding a potential new financial model for teams were also brought to light. Jeff Gordon’s inquiry to Ben Kennedy about the family’s openness to such a model received a "yes," but O’Donnell denied its truthfulness when questioned by Kessler. O’Donnell’s handwritten note from February 2023, expressing hope for a "next generation" board and that a "legacy mindset" inhibited growth, was presented. Kessler suggested Jim France was a "brick wall" in negotiations, a characterization O’Donnell attributed to Kessler’s words.

NASCAR also revealed significant financial losses on the Chicago Street Course and racing in Mexico City, framing them as strategic investments tied to securing Amazon as a broadcast partner. Front Row Motorsports owner Bob Jenkins testified about the financial demands of the Next Gen car, stating it cost $20 million per car to race in the Cup Series, though NASCAR attorneys presented documents indicating FRM’s highest expenditure was $14 million. Discussions surrounding a proposed FRM/23XI merger and NASCAR’s imposition of a deadline for the 2025 Charter Agreement were also explored, with Jenkins describing the deadline as a catalyst for a forced deal. Judge Bell expressed concern about the trial’s pace, urging both sides to streamline their presentations.

Day 3: Executive Testimony and Owner’s Perspective
NASCAR’s Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer, Scott Prime, faced continued cross-examination. Kessler focused on the "goodwill provision" in the 2025 Charter Agreement, which restricts team owners from competing in other series without NASCAR approval, terming it "anti-competitive will." The intellectual property restrictions on the Next Gen car were also presented as a tool to restrain trade. Kessler quoted an email from NASCAR Commissioner Steve Phelps with a "take it or leave it" stance, stating, "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 attempted to counter arguments about track exclusivity by suggesting rival series could race elsewhere. The "Amanda (Oliver) Chart," illustrating only one team "win" in 22 negotiation points, was presented. Prime’s prior acknowledgment of the September 6th deadline as a "gun to the head" offer was revisited. Jim France’s reluctance to approve permanent charters, despite Prime’s behind-the-scenes efforts, was also noted.

Following Prime’s testimony, Bob Jenkins, owner of Front Row Motorsports, took the stand as the sole chartered organization to not sign the eleventh-hour agreement. Jenkins stated he incurred an annual loss of $6.8 million and had never turned a profit, not taking a salary himself. He detailed the increased cost of car components under the Next Gen model, rising from $1.8 million to $4.7 million. His motivation, he explained, was a belief in the system and a commitment to his 150 employees. Jenkins described the September 6th deadline as "insulting" and "backwards," recounting the emotional pressure on team owners, particularly Joe Gibbs, who felt he had let Jenkins down by signing. Jenkins clarified that drivers have options in choosing teams, differentiating their contracts from NASCAR’s non-compete clauses. Judge Bell addressed NASCAR attorneys for alleged violations of court orders.

Day 2: Hamlin’s Tense Cross-Examination and Executive Scrutiny
Denny Hamlin, co-owner of 23XI Racing and a prominent driver, endured a contentious cross-examination. Hamlin repeatedly stated, "We’re not a monopoly like you are," and recounted personal frustrations with Jim France dating back to the 2022 banquet, where France allegedly identified excessive team spending as NASCAR’s primary issue. Hamlin argued that cost-cutting alone was not a viable solution for team growth. He engaged in verbal sparring with NASCAR attorney Lawrence Buterman over the financial realities faced by teams. Hamlin’s annual driver contract with Joe Gibbs Racing, valued at $14 million, was disclosed, with Hamlin attributing his higher earnings to his performance level.

Scott Prime, NASCAR’s Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer, also faced scrutiny regarding internal disagreements over charter terms and Jim France’s apparent commitment to imposing terms after halting negotiations. Unsealed communications suggesting France’s obstruction were presented. Prime also addressed NASCAR’s efforts to prevent a potential breakaway series, similar to the CART/IRL split in open-wheel racing, and described "Project Gold Codes" as a contingency plan for boycotts or failure to sign the charter agreement.

Day 1: Jury Selection, Opening Statements, and Initial Testimony
The trial commenced with jury selection, followed by opening statements from both sides. Denny Hamlin was the first witness, testifying for approximately 40 minutes before cross-examination. A recurring theme in Hamlin’s testimony, as noted by Motorsport.com’s Senior NASCAR Editor Matt Weaver, was the inherent competition between teams and NASCAR for sponsorships. Hamlin stated, "First, I have to fend off the series. If a new sponsor wants to come in, NASCAR will go after them. I have to fight them. I have to fight other teams for them. I have to fight them for employees."

NASCAR attorney John E. Stephenson framed the teams’ lawsuit as an attack on the charter system, alleging the antitrust claims were a response to their refusal to sign the new agreement. Conversely, team attorney Jeffrey Kessler aimed to establish a pattern of anti-competitive strategy orchestrated by NASCAR CEO Jim France, supported by text messages from NASCAR leadership.

💬 Tinggalkan Komentar dengan Facebook

Author Profile

rifan muazin

Latest entries

Nascar CupDecember 27, 2025Landmark NASCAR Antitrust Trial Concludes with Unexpected Settlement: Key Moments and Implications
Nascar CupDecember 27, 2025NTSB Outlines Extensive Investigation Process for Fatal Greg Biffle Plane Crash
Nascar CupDecember 27, 2025NASCAR Star Brad Keselowski Sustains Broken Leg in Skiing Mishap
Nascar CupDecember 26, 2025Chevrolet Engineers Boldly Refine 2026 NASCAR Cup Car for Enhanced Performance

Or check our Popular Categories...

Or check our Popular Categories...