rifan muazin
The antitrust trial involving NASCAR, 23XI Racing, and Front Row Motorsports has entered a critical phase, with senior NASCAR officials, including Commissioner Steve Phelps and CEO Jim France, facing intense questioning from lead attorney Jeffrey Kessler. The proceedings have highlighted a recurring theme: a perceived evasiveness from NASCAR leadership when confronted with specific inquiries regarding their knowledge and decision-making processes concerning charter extension negotiations.
For weeks, Kessler has meticulously constructed a narrative on behalf of his clients, suggesting that numerous NASCAR officials recognized the teams’ need for more favorable terms during charter extensions but were ultimately overruled by Jim France. This alleged intransigence by France has become a central point of contention in the legal battle, with teams arguing that NASCAR’s monopolistic position in the sport prevents them from negotiating on equal footing.
During Tuesday’s testimony, both Phelps and France were subjected to rigorous cross-examination. Phelps, when presented with emails he authored, repeatedly responded with phrases like "I don’t remember" or "I wasn’t there," a tactic that Kessler suggested was a strategic deflection to avoid legally detrimental admissions. Kessler even wryly assured Phelps that his memory might improve during cross-examination by his own attorney, implying that the current lack of recall was selective.
Despite the claims of memory lapses, Phelps did recall specific dates related to the COVID-19 pandemic shutdown, noting its commencement on March 13, 2020, and NASCAR’s return on May 18, 2020. This selective recollection has fueled the prosecution’s argument that a pattern of convenient amnesia is being employed by NASCAR’s leadership.
Related News :
- NASCAR Xfinity Title Loss Derails Connor Zilisch’s WEC Hypercar Test Aspirations
- Kyle Larson Expresses Empathy for Denny Hamlin’s Heartbreak in NASCAR Championship Stumble
- NASCAR Antitrust Battle Focuses on Monopoly Claims as 23XI, Front Row Narrow Legal Scope
- Larson Offers Words of Empathy for Hamlin’s Crushing Championship Defeat
- NASCAR Cup Series 2025: Unpacking the Internal Team Dominance
Earlier in the week, NASCAR President Steve O’Donnell had also faced similar questioning. While O’Donnell was characterized as a "team guy" internally, his testimony, along with Phelps’s, pointed towards a directive from Jim France that ultimately shaped the charter negotiation outcomes. An email exchange involving Phelps, O’Donnell, and an individual identified as Prime, revealed Phelps’s frustration with France’s stance. Phelps’s communication stated, "lots of options, but all have the same theme: Pick a date and they can sign or lose their charters. It is that simple." However, under oath, Phelps claimed to have forgotten many of the details surrounding these communications.
Kessler’s strategy has been to portray Jim France as an unyielding figure who resisted granting teams more lucrative or permanent charter agreements, even when his own senior executives suggested the merits of doing so. Evidence presented included an email from Phelps to Rick Hendrick stating, "we wish we could give you permanent charters but Jim doesn’t want that." Again, Phelps testified to not remembering this specific communication.
Further details emerged regarding NASCAR’s response to the Race Team Alliance’s exploration of independent racing series, such as a mid-week dirt racing series or the nascent Superstar Racing Experience (SRX). Phelps was questioned about the inclusion of more restrictive track exclusivity agreements in Speedway Motorsports’ contracts around that time. His response of "No idea" to questions about the rationale behind these agreements has drawn skepticism.
Moreover, private text messages from February 2, 2023, attributed to Phelps, suggested a strong stance against a rival series, with Phelps reportedly telling O’Donnell and Prime to "’need to put a knife in this trash series.’" Kessler highlighted the eventual demise of that series as a consequence of such actions. Phelps defended his remarks as mere frustration, explaining that the competing series was using sponsors and branding that closely resembled NASCAR’s identity. However, this contradicted earlier statements made by Phelps to former NASCAR President Brent Dewar, where he allegedly vowed to "fight to protect" NASCAR’s territory from competitors.
The core of Kessler’s argument is that France has leveraged his monopsony power – the ability of a single buyer to control a market – to impose unfavorable terms on the race teams, who have limited alternative avenues for competition at the highest level of stock car racing. When asked directly if NASCAR was using its market power, Phelps responded with a definitive "Absolutely not."
In the concluding moments of Phelps’s re-examination, Kessler probed whether France’s opposition to permanent charters stemmed from a desire to retain more "power" within the sport’s political structure. Phelps denied this, stating, "He is not." Kessler countered that permanent charters would prevent NASCAR from revoking them or implementing strategies like operating a series entirely in-house, often referred to as the "gold codes" strategy. Phelps conceded, "We couldn’t."
Kessler’s line of questioning then touched upon whether teams should trust Jim France to act as a "benevolent dictator." This prompted an objection from NASCAR’s lead attorney, Chris Yates, leading Kessler to withdraw the question but effectively making his point.
Jim France Takes the Stand
The highly anticipated testimony of Jim France, the youngest son of NASCAR founder Bill France Sr., provided a stark contrast to the narrative of collaboration. Despite professing deep friendships with many prominent Cup Series owners, France denied their most significant request: permanent charters. Owners such as Rick Hendrick, Roger Penske, Joe Gibbs, Jack Roush, and Richard Childress had all formally communicated their desire for "evergreen" or permanent charters, citing their transformative impact on their businesses. This was further echoed by NASCAR’s senior leadership.
When confronted with these requests, France stated, "We did not do evergreen or permanent charters, no." He also claimed to have no recollection of these owners expressing such sentiments. When presented with documentary evidence, France simply acknowledged that the letters contained those requests.
The testimony also addressed a crucial phone call from Joe Gibbs on the September 6 deadline day. Heather Gibbs, Joe Gibbs’s daughter-in-law, testified that Coach Gibbs pleaded with France, saying, "please don’t do this to us," after receiving an offer he deemed unfair. France stated he couldn’t recall telling Gibbs, "if I only get 20 charters back, I get 20 charters back," a detail from Heather Gibbs’s testimony. When pressed if he denied it, France responded, "I’m not sure I did."
This pattern of "I don’t remember" dominated France’s testimony, with him reportedly unable to answer approximately 90 percent of Kessler’s questions. A representative exchange included:
Kessler: "Do you think NASCAR will have more or less revenue than last year?"
France: "Not sure. I haven’t looked at it."
Kessler: "How much in distribution money will you make this year?"
France: "I’m not aware of that, I’m sorry."
Kessler: "Does the France family own all the equity in NASCAR?"
France: "I think so."
Kessler: "Did Goldman Sachs estimate NASCAR’s equity as $5 billion?"
France: "I don’t recall."
Kessler: "Were you at the meeting on April 27, 2023, about acquiring Speedway Motorsports?"
France: "I might have been. I don’t know."
Kessler: "Do you have any reason to disagree with NASCAR’s equity being $5 billion?"
France: "I’m not sure."
France attributed his lack of recall to the deposition process, stating, "I just don’t remember. I’m sorry." Even his own salary proved to be a point of contention. When asked, he estimated it to be "around $3.5 million range," to which Kessler corrected him, stating, "$3.8." France then conceded, "Pretty close. We’ll go with that." This exchange typified the two-hour sparring session between Kessler and France.
The court also heard about an emotional letter from Heather Gibbs. O’Donnell had previously testified that France "swore" out loud upon reading it. However, when Kessler read the letter aloud to France, he denied becoming upset and also claimed no memory of reading it aloud in a meeting. O’Donnell later clarified that he might have exaggerated France’s reaction but did not deny the letter was read in a meeting.
Further discrepancies arose regarding a 2021 meeting where NASCAR senior leadership strategized for upcoming charter negotiations. O’Donnell summarized that France opposed a "most favored nations" clause, the abolition of the three-strike veto rule, and expressed a desire for NASCAR to own charters – provisions that were ultimately ratified in the 2025-2031 agreement. France initially claimed no memory of being involved in this meeting, but upon being shown O’Donnell’s email, he acknowledged, "It appears that way." O’Donnell’s email also quoted France with the overarching comment: "WE ARE IN COMPETITION. WE ARE GOING TO WIN." France, however, stated, "I don’t recall making those comments."
Richard Childress Faces Unexpected Cross-Examination
While Richard Childress, owner of Richard Childress Racing (RCR), was expected to be a key figure in the trial, the headlines generated were not entirely as anticipated. Childress testified under direct examination from his attorney, Danielle Williams, about his desire for permanent charters, explaining his aspiration to eventually pass RCR down to his grandsons, Austin and Ty. However, during cross-examination by NASCAR’s attorney, Chris Yates, Childress was subjected to unexpected lines of questioning.
Yates first inquired about the ownership structure of RCR. Childress initially resisted answering, but Judge Kenneth D. Bell mandated a truthful response under oath. It was revealed that Childress owns 60 percent of the team, with the remaining 40 percent held by private equity firm Chartwell Investments.
The focus then shifted to Childress’s discussions with former NASCAR driver Bobby Hillin Jr. concerning Hillin’s exploration of purchasing a stake in RCR. This potential deal involved a group led by Hillin acquiring shares from both Childress and Chartwell Investments. Childress again expressed reluctance to answer, but was again compelled by Judge Bell. He stated that Chartwell was looking to exit the sport and that Hillin had approached him with the inquiry. Childress became agitated that NASCAR’s attorney possessed this information, which he believed was protected by non-disclosure agreements, and publicly revealed it in court. He asserted, "This isn’t what we are here for."
The proposed deal also conceptually included the purchase of a third charter. Childress confirmed Hillin’s discussions about this but stated he issued a termination letter because "they didn’t have the money, period."
Furthermore, Yates questioned Childress about financial audits conducted by Hillin’s group. These audits reportedly showed RCR had achieved a positive Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization (EBITDA) every year of its 55-year existence. Childress expressed agitation, believing this information was also protected by an NDA. When asked if RCR’s consistent profitability was true, he responded, "I guess."
Following the dismissal of the jury, attorneys for 23XI and Front Row Motorsports requested that NASCAR turn over documents related to Hillin’s claims and identify the source of this information. Judge Bell instructed both parties to discuss the matter and present a resolution before 10 p.m. that evening.
Childress elaborated on RCR’s financial stability, explaining that his other businesses subsidize the race team. "I have other businesses to pay our bills for NASCAR," he stated. "I’d be broke if I was just doing the Cup teams." These ventures include a manufacturing shop producing chassis for Xfinity Series teams, as well as military contracts, ECR Engines, which supplies powerplants across the industry, and a vineyard. Despite this diversification, Childress concluded that the revenue generated by his other businesses should ideally be retained within his personal accounts rather than used to support his NASCAR operations.
💬 Tinggalkan Komentar dengan Facebook
Author Profile
Latest entries
Nascar CupDecember 10, 2025NASCAR Executives Face Scrutiny as Trial Unearths Internal Disagreements on Charter Negotiations
Nascar CupDecember 10, 2025Shane van Gisbergen’s Iconic No. 97 Red Bull Livery Unveiled for 2026 NASCAR Cup Season Debut
Nascar CupDecember 9, 202523XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports Demand Full Depositions from Penske and Hendrick Ahead of Antitrust Trial
Nascar CupDecember 9, 2025Michael McDowell Puts Retirement on the Backburner, Eyes Continued Competitiveness in NASCAR Cup Series
Jonas Leo
Ali Akbar Rosady