NASCAR Antitrust Trial Concludes with Landmark Settlement as 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports Reach Accord

The contentious antitrust trial involving NASCAR, 23XI Racing, and Front Row Motorsports has reached an unexpected conclusion with a settlement agreement announced on the ninth day of proceedings. The landmark deal brings an end to the legal battle that had the potential to significantly reshape the future of professional stock car racing. Details of the financial terms remain confidential, but joint statements confirm the resolution and the dismissal of the jury. A key outcome of the settlement is the commitment to permanent or evergreen charters, a central point of contention throughout the trial.

The trial, which commenced with jury selection and opening statements, saw a series of high-profile witnesses take the stand, including NASCAR executives, team owners, and prominent figures in the sport. The core of the lawsuit revolved around allegations that NASCAR operated as a monopoly, stifling competition and unfairly disadvantaging teams, particularly in its control over the charter system.

Key Moments and Testimony Unveiled:

Day 9: Settlement Reached, Trial Concluded
Related News :

The dramatic conclusion saw NASCAR, 23XI Racing, and Front Row Motorsports agree to terms, averting a potentially lengthy trial and uncertain verdict. The joint statement emphasized a shared commitment to the future of NASCAR, with a focus on fan experience. While the financial specifics are undisclosed, the agreement ensures the France family’s continued stewardship of the sport. Crucially, charters previously held by 23XI and FRM are to be returned to them as part of the settlement, addressing a significant point of contention.

Day 8: 23XI/FRM Rest Case, NASCAR Begins Defense
NASCAR’s Chief Financial Officer, Greg Motto, testified regarding the $400 million distributed annually to the France family trust. Legal counsel for the teams, Jeffrey Kessler, argued that NASCAR could have afforded higher charter payments, suggesting annual distributions of $720 million instead of the projected $431 million for 2025, a figure Motto countered would have jeopardized the sport’s financial stability. Kessler also highlighted NASCAR’s $544 million profit from the sale of the Auto Club Speedway land, suggesting these funds could have been allocated to teams rather than debt repayment stemming from the 2019 International Speedway Corporation merger, implying a circular flow of funds within the France family. Following the teams’ presentation of their case, NASCAR began its defense, with Senior Vice President of Innovation and Racing Development, John Probst, taking the stand. Probst focused on the development of the Next Gen car and argued that teams were experiencing a "reckless" spending problem. Attempts to draw parallels to the historical American Open Wheel Split as a cautionary tale against competing series were met with sustained objections from the judge. Probst also addressed the potential for the Next Gen car to be used in non-NASCAR series, stating, "we would discuss it." NASCAR CEO Jim France concluded his testimony, expressing reservations about "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 Defense
NASCAR CEO Jim France, NASCAR Commissioner Steve Phelps, and veteran team owner Richard Childress provided testimony. Both Phelps and France frequently responded with "I do not remember" or similar phrases, drawing commentary from Kessler regarding their lack of recall. France reiterated his opposition to permanent charters. Phelps was questioned about an email to Rick Hendrick regarding permanent charters, which he could not recall. He also addressed NASCAR’s concerns about the Superstar Racing Experience (SRX), stating it caused "confusion in the marketplace" and that its visual similarities to NASCAR were problematic for team owners. Phelps’ assertion that the Next Gen car was the "safest in motorsports" elicited a noticeable reaction from drivers present, particularly in light of Kurt Busch’s career-ending concussion in 2022. The financial struggles of Furniture Row Racing following their 2017 championship win were also discussed, with Phelps attributing it to significant expenses, including a technical alliance with Joe Gibbs Racing that saw its cost increase substantially after their championship success. Jim France’s testimony was marked by his inability to recall details from numerous messages and emails. Richard Childress took the stand amidst recent revelations of disparaging internal messages from NASCAR leadership, which he is reportedly considering legal action over. Childress affirmed his support for permanent charters and was compelled to testify about discussions with former driver Bobby Hillin Jr. regarding a potential acquisition of RCR shares and a charter, a deal that ultimately failed due to alleged financial shortcomings. The relevance of RCR’s audited financial statements, showing consistent positive EBITA, was questioned, agitating Childress who believed it violated an NDA.

Day 6: Economic Expert Calculates Damages
Economist Edward Snyder presented his findings as an expert witness for the teams, asserting that NASCAR had created "barriers" to competition. He argued that NASCAR was compensating teams below market value and cited examples of anti-competitive practices, including venue exclusivity and restrictions on participation in other racing series, as well as limitations on the use of the Next Gen car. Snyder calculated total damages owed to 23XI and FRM at approximately $364.7 million, with $215.8 million for 23XI and $148.9 million for FRM. He drew comparisons to Formula 1’s Concorde Agreement. NASCAR’s legal team attempted to discredit Snyder’s expertise during cross-examination.

Day 5: Michael Jordan and Heather Gibbs Testify
NBA legend and 23XI Racing co-owner Michael Jordan testified for an hour, describing his significant investment in the sport and his desire for success. He explained the decision to acquire a third charter was driven by the pursuit of a championship. Jordan drew parallels to the NBA, advocating for a more equitable partnership between teams and NASCAR, suggesting a 45% revenue split as a goal. He stated, "Someone had to step forward to challenge NASCAR." NASCAR’s legal team attempted to portray Jordan’s financial advisor, Curtis Polk, as the instigator of the lawsuit, citing a past comment from Polk calling the racing "boring as shit." Heather Gibbs, daughter-in-law of Joe Gibbs, testified about the tense "take-it-or-leave-it" deadline imposed by NASCAR for the 2025 Charter Agreement, describing it as a high-pressure situation. She recounted Joe Gibbs’ plea to Jim France, "Don’t do this to us!" France’s response, indicating he would proceed with whatever number of charters remained if an agreement wasn’t reached, was also highlighted. NASCAR President Steve O’Donnell’s testimony continued, focusing on NASCAR’s concerns about the SRX series, particularly the use of sponsored cars resembling NASCAR liveries, such as Chase Elliott’s NAPA-sponsored No. 9 car. Despite O’Donnell’s claims of SRX’s potential return, sources close to the series indicated otherwise. O’Donnell also presented charter value increases as evidence of the sport’s health, though Judge Bell cautioned that "growing the sport" might not be a valid defense and could be considered a self-admission.

Day 4: NASCAR’s Steve O’Donnell and the SRX "Threat"
The Superstar Racing Experience (SRX) took center stage, with previously unsealed messages revealing NASCAR’s perception of the series as a threat. Team attorney Jeffrey Kessler argued that NASCAR’s actions to stifle SRX indicated a monopolistic use of its power. NASCAR President Steve O’Donnell testified about NASCAR’s issues with SRX, including its concern that the series could compete for viewership and broadcast revenue, especially as NASCAR was negotiating its own media rights deals. NASCAR’s decision to return short tracks like Bowman Gray and North Wilkesboro to the schedule was partially attributed to SRX’s presence on those venues. O’Donnell claimed NASCAR’s interest in examining SRX was due to intellectual property concerns, but the trial suggested broader fears of a competitive breakaway series similar to LIV Golf’s challenge to the PGA Tour. Internal communications revealed discussions about potential changes to NASCAR’s financial model, with Jim France reportedly being a significant obstacle to team proposals. O’Donnell also disclosed that NASCAR incurred losses on the Chicago Street Course and racing in Mexico City, but framed these as strategic investments to secure broadcast partners like Amazon. Front Row Motorsports owner Bob Jenkins testified about the significant cost increase of the Next Gen car and his team’s annual losses, emphasizing his commitment to his employees and his belief in the need for systemic change. The September 6 deadline was described as "insulting" and "backwards." Judge Bell expressed concern over the trial’s pace, urging both sides to streamline their presentations.

Day 3: Scott Prime and Bob Jenkins Take the Stand
NASCAR 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, labeling it "anti-competitive." The intellectual property restrictions of the Next Gen car were also scrutinized as a potential tool to restrain trade. Kessler cited an email from NASCAR Commissioner Steve Phelps as evidence of a "take it or leave it" attitude, characteristic of a monopolist. Prime addressed NASCAR’s exclusivity agreements with tracks, arguing that rival series could still race elsewhere. The "Amanda (Oliver) Chart," illustrating the limited success of team requests in negotiations, was presented. Bob Jenkins, owner of Front Row Motorsports, testified about his team’s consistent financial losses and the increased costs associated with the Next Gen car. He expressed his strong belief in the need for change within the system. Jenkins described the September 6 deadline as "insulting" and highlighted the emotional impact on team owners, particularly Joe Gibbs. He also addressed the comparison between NASCAR’s non-compete clauses and those in driver contracts, asserting that drivers have more options. Judge Bell issued a reprimand to NASCAR’s legal team for violating court orders.

Day 2: Denny Hamlin’s Tense Cross-Examination and NASCAR Executive Grilled
Denny Hamlin endured a contentious cross-examination, repeatedly stating, "We’re not a monopoly like you are." He shared personal frustrations with Jim France stemming from the 2022 banquet, where France reportedly identified excessive team spending as the primary issue in NASCAR. Hamlin countered that cost-cutting measures were not a realistic solution for teams facing financial pressures. He also revealed his annual driver contract earnings of $14 million. Scott Prime was questioned about internal disagreements within NASCAR regarding charter terms and Jim France’s apparent commitment to imposing terms on teams after negotiations stalled. Prime also addressed NASCAR’s past efforts to prevent breakaway series, citing "Project Gold Codes" as a contingency plan for potential boycotts or non-compliance with the charter agreement.

Day 1: Jury Selection, Opening Statements, and Hamlin’s Testimony
The trial commenced with jury selection, followed by opening statements from both sides. Denny Hamlin, as the first witness, testified for approximately 40 minutes, focusing on the challenges teams face in competing with NASCAR for sponsorships and employees. NASCAR’s attorney framed the lawsuit as an attack on the charter system by teams unwilling to sign the new agreement. Kessler, representing the teams, aimed to establish an anti-competitive strategy orchestrated by Jim France, presenting text messages from NASCAR leadership as evidence.

The settlement marks a significant development, bringing an end to a trial that provided a rare public glimpse into the intricate business and legal dynamics of professional motorsports. The future of NASCAR’s charter system and its relationship with team owners will now be shaped by the terms of this confidential agreement.