rifan muazin
The highly anticipated antitrust trial pitting NASCAR against two prominent race teams, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, officially began Monday in Charlotte, North Carolina. The opening day featured jury selection, impassioned opening statements from both the plaintiffs and the defendant, and the initial testimony of a key witness for the plaintiff’s side, Denny Hamlin. The proceedings set the stage for a complex legal battle that could significantly reshape the landscape of stock car racing.
At the heart of the lawsuit is the allegation that NASCAR has engaged in anti-competitive practices, leveraging its dominant position as a sanctioning body to the detriment of team owners. Plaintiffs’ lead attorney, Jeffrey Kessler, outlined a two-week strategy aimed at presenting evidence, including internal communications, that he claims will demonstrate a deliberate effort by NASCAR leadership, spearheaded by CEO Jim France, to suppress team revenue and maintain control.
Kessler presented email and text message exchanges purportedly from NASCAR executives Steve Phelps, Steve O’Donnell, and Scott Prime, suggesting an awareness of unfairness during charter negotiations. He cited a specific exchange where Phelps allegedly described an offer as giving teams "zero wins," and O’Donnell reportedly characterized it as a "fuck the teams" offer that would regress NASCAR to its "tiny southern roots" of 1996.
"The other three executives all knew that NASCAR operates under Jim France, and the family is the board (of directors) and the board is NASCAR, so the board is Jim France," Kessler argued, emphasizing that these executives were aware of Jim France’s alleged intentions towards the teams.
Related News :
- NASCAR Cup Series Sees Significant Viewership Dip in 2025 Amidst Broadcast Realignment
- Briscoe Reflects on Championship Bid Frustration Amidst Stellar Joe Gibbs Racing Debut
- Daniel Suarez Reflects on Trackhouse Tenure, Eyes New Chapter with Spire Motorsports
- Talladega Sees Unprecedented Lead Changes, Nearing NASCAR Record
- Larson Claims Second NASCAR Cup Title in Overtime Thriller, Hamlin’s Championship Dreams Shattered
The plaintiffs contend that NASCAR ultimately imposed a "take it or leave it" final offer in September 2024 for charter extensions, a deal described as unfavorable. "Sign it by midnight or lose your charters," Kessler stated, framing this ultimatum as an exercise of "monopoly power" and resulting in "monopoly injury."
Specific grievances raised by Kessler include the teams’ desire for permanent charters, which were reportedly denied. Furthermore, the teams sought $20 million per car in charter value but allegedly received only $12.5 million. A demand for veto power over competition changes was also rebuffed, and the previous "three strikes" provision, which offered teams a degree of veto authority, was reportedly removed.
Kessler likened the concept of a non-permanent charter to renting a house versus owning one, arguing that teams seek to permanently own their "figurative house" to extract greater enterprise value. He asserted that granting charter permanency would incur no cost for NASCAR.
To explain the concept of monopsony – a market situation where there is only one buyer for a particular good or service – Kessler used an analogy of a nurse seeking employment. "If there is only one hospital, and you want to be a nurse, you either take whatever they pay you or you’re not going to be a nurse," he explained to the jury.
Kessler’s argument hinged on three key points, though the specifics were not detailed in the provided text. He concluded his opening statement by reiterating the belief that Jim France exploited NASCAR’s monopsony status to depress team earnings. He claimed expert testimony would show that teams would receive 45% of NASCAR’s value in a fair market, but currently receive only 39%, according to the teams’ assessment. "What the evidence is going to show is that (Jim) France ran this for his family at the expense of the teams," Kessler asserted.
He also presented financial context, citing a Goldman Sachs valuation of NASCAR at $5 billion and noting the sanctioning body’s $400 million revenue over the past three years, all to underscore the perceived financial disparity faced by the teams.
NASCAR’s defense was presented by attorney John E. Stephenson, who maintained the organization’s consistent stance: that the charter system, in place since 2016, has been honored with integrity and financial commitment. Stephenson characterized the lawsuit as an attack on this system, initiated only after the charter extension deadline passed and the final offer was made in September 2024.
"Literally none of these things were raised to NASCAR until the lawsuit was filed," Stephenson stated. "From 2016 to 2024, none of it was brought up." He pointed to a September 6 letter from 23XI explaining their non-signing of the agreement, which he claimed made no mention of anticompetitive behavior, a sentiment echoed in communications with Front Row.
NASCAR’s position is that 23XI likely intended to file a lawsuit if their desired financial terms were not met. Stephenson cited a quote from a Curtis Polk (23XI co-owner) email produced during discovery: "’A lawsuit is our greatest leverage.’" He also used a recurring NASCAR talking point, asserting that 23XI and Front Row are engaging in "negotiation through litigation" rather than pursuing genuine antitrust reform.
Stephenson highlighted another Polk email where he allegedly hoped NASCAR representatives would not attend a meeting because it would "build our record," suggesting 23XI was not negotiating in good faith. He also referenced private Polk emails from 2023 expressing "admiration" for the France family’s business acumen and making no reference to anticompetitive behavior.
A central argument from NASCAR is that if the charters were truly a product of anticompetitive behavior and a "bad deal," then 23XI would not have continued to acquire them.
Addressing the non-compete clauses teams must agree to, Stephenson drew a parallel to similar clauses signed by drivers with their teams. He described the provision prohibiting teams from competing against NASCAR as a trade-off for greater guaranteed revenue, stating, "Be all in on NASCAR Stock Car racing, is what that says. You’re getting guaranteed money. They agreed to it. They never made claims against it until filing their lawsuit."
Regarding the merger of NASCAR with its sister company, International Speedway Corporation, which plaintiffs allege was an anti-competitive move to secure tracks and maintain their monopsony, Stephenson argued it was for "schedule flexibility" and "innovation." He explained that as a publicly traded entity, NASCAR/ISC could not take risks on events like the Chicago street race or the Los Angeles Coliseum event without the flexibility afforded by the merger.
Stephenson repeatedly posed the question, "Why are we here?" and suggested Polk had a premeditated plan to bring NASCAR to trial if charter terms were not met.
The day concluded with approximately 40 minutes of testimony from Denny Hamlin, co-owner of 23XI Racing. Hamlin’s direct examination, led by Jeanifer Parsigian, focused on foundational aspects of his involvement in racing and team ownership. His testimony will resume Tuesday with cross-examination by NASCAR’s legal team.
Earlier in the day, Judge Kenneth D. Bell ruled on a NASCAR motion to limit the number of 23XI owners present to hear testimony. The judge, "reluctant" but aiming to avoid potential re-trial risks, granted the motion, requiring 23XI to designate a single representative. Jordan was designated, but Hamlin, as the first witness, was permitted to remain in court. Other designated witnesses, like Polk, will be allowed to join once their testimony concludes.
Parsigian’s questioning of Hamlin began with basic biographical details before moving to his racing career and team ownership responsibilities. Hamlin humorously deflected a question about his most recent season by asking if he could "plead the fifth," before detailing a near-victory in the championship race that was thwarted by a late caution.
A recurring theme in Hamlin’s testimony was the challenge of securing sponsorships, a process he described as frequently requiring him to compete with NASCAR itself for potential partners. He stated that when a new sponsor considers entering the sport, "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."
Hamlin detailed the significant investment required to operate a Cup Series car, estimating $20 million annually, with the current charter agreement covering $12.5 million, leaving a substantial gap to be filled by sponsorship. He acknowledged that Michael Jordan’s co-ownership is instrumental in 23XI’s ability to turn a profit, a factor that made Jordan an attractive partner.
When asked about the fairness of the charter agreement, Hamlin pointed to the fact that 11 of the original 19 charter teams from 2016 have ceased operations. "If the terms were fair, they wouldn’t have gone out of business," Hamlin stated, adding, "Only one side is going out of business."
Hamlin also noted that 23XI’s profitability can be impacted by NASCAR-controlled factors, such as mid-season rule changes that can cost millions per car, and international races. He stated that his business partners urge him to run 23XI as leanly as possible. He also disclosed that 23XI pays Joe Gibbs Racing $2.66 million per car annually for an alliance fee, as JGR is the primary Toyota organization.
The day also saw the completion of jury selection, with a six-man, three-woman panel being chosen after approximately two hours of questioning. Potential witnesses were also revealed, with NASCAR listing individuals such as Jim France, Steve O’Donnell, and Steve Phelps, while the teams listed Richard Childress, Rick Hendrick, and Roger Penske among others. Several prospective jurors were dismissed for various reasons, including prior knowledge of the parties involved and strong opinions about Michael Jordan. One candidate’s humorous response about "heavy drinking" as a hobby on his questionnaire did not disqualify him from serving.
The day’s proceedings began with Judge Bell admonishing both legal teams for a "confrontational" approach and prohibiting the use of exhibits during opening statements, citing concerns that disallowed materials might be presented.
The trial is scheduled to continue throughout the coming weeks, with significant legal and financial implications for the future of NASCAR.
💬 Tinggalkan Komentar dengan Facebook
Author Profile
Latest entries
Nascar CupDecember 9, 2025NASCAR Antitrust Trial Commences: Teams Allege Monopolistic Practices, NASCAR Denies Claims
Nascar CupDecember 9, 2025Richard Childress Considers Legal Recourse Following Unsealed NASCAR Executive Communications
Nascar CupDecember 8, 2025Denny Hamlin’s Elusive NASCAR Cup Championship: A Chronicle of Near Misses
Nascar CupDecember 8, 2025Rick Ware Racing Secures Chevrolet Partnership for 2026 NASCAR Cup Season, Forges Technical Alliance with Richard Childress Racing
Jonas Leo
Ali Akbar Rosady