NASCAR Executives Face Scrutiny as Trial Unearths Internal Disagreements on Charter Negotiations

The ongoing antitrust trial involving NASCAR, 23XI Racing, and Front Row Motorsports has seen a recurring theme emerge from the testimony of senior NASCAR officials: a consistent deflection of direct questions concerning their knowledge and decision-making processes, particularly regarding charter extension negotiations. Lead attorney Jeffrey Kessler, representing the plaintiff teams, has repeatedly probed NASCAR executives, including President Steve O’Donnell, Commissioner Steve Phelps, and CEO Jim France, on matters falling squarely within their purported authority. The common refrain from these officials has been variations of "I don’t know" or "I wasn’t there," a strategy Kessler suggests is aimed at avoiding legally disadvantageous admissions.

Kessler has systematically attempted to build a narrative that many NASCAR officials recognized the teams’ entitlement to more favorable terms during charter extension discussions but were ultimately overruled by Jim France. This approach was evident when emails clearly authored by Phelps, suggesting internal frustrations with France’s stance, elicited responses of "I don’t remember this." Kessler, in a pointed remark, assured the executive that his memory would likely improve under cross-examination by his own attorney. Despite this general amnesia, Phelps was able to recall specific dates related to the COVID-19 shutdown, noting its commencement on March 13, 2020, and NASCAR’s return on May 18, 2020.

While Steve O’Donnell presented himself as a "team guy," a label reportedly used internally within NASCAR, Phelps’ testimony evolved to suggest he ultimately implemented decisions dictated by France. An email exchange involving O’Donnell and Prime indicated a firm ultimatum for teams: "Pick a date and they can sign or lose their charters. It is that simple." The unearthed communications prior to this point reportedly revealed Phelps’ frustration with France, though he claimed to have forgotten many of the details surrounding these exchanges during his testimony.

Kessler’s strategy has been to portray France as an immovable force, unwilling to concede to teams’ demands for better financial terms or permanent charters, even when his top lieutenants advised a more conciliatory approach. An email from Phelps to Rick Hendrick stating, "we wish we could give you permanent charters but Jim doesn’t want that," was also met with Phelps’ assertion of no recollection. Furthermore, Phelps claimed ignorance when questioned about the inclusion of more extensive track exclusivity agreements in Speedway Motorsports contracts, coinciding with the Race Team Alliance’s exploration of independent racing series, such as a mid-week summer dirt series or the nascent SRX tour.

Related News :

• NASCAR Gears Up for 2026 Short Track Revolution with Crucial Tire and Aerodynamic Testing
• Trackhouse Racing’s Bold Numbering Strategy for 2026 Unveiled in Heartfelt Video, Assigning Iconic #97 to Shane van Gisbergen.
• NASCAR Executive Faces Scrutiny Over Internal Doubts in Antitrust Trial Day Two
• Blaney Caps Phoenix Finale with Dominant Victory, Overcomes Playoff Heartbreak
• Kyle Larson Clinches Second NASCAR Cup Series Championship in Dramatic Phoenix Overtime Thriller; Blaney Claims Season Finale Victory

The attorney for 23XI and Front Row has aimed to establish France’s alleged use of monopsony power, leveraging the teams’ reliance on NASCAR for competition at the highest level to impose unfavorable terms. When directly asked if this was the case, Phelps responded with a definitive "Absolutely not." In the final moments of his re-examination, Phelps was questioned about whether France’s opposition to permanent charters stemmed from a desire to prevent teams from gaining "more power" within the sport’s political structure. Phelps again denied this assertion. Kessler countered by arguing that permanent charters would indeed limit NASCAR’s ability to revoke them or implement strategies like operating a series entirely "in-house," to which Phelps conceded, "We couldn’t."

The notion of France acting as a "benevolent dictator" was posed to Phelps by Kessler, drawing an objection from NASCAR’s lead attorney, Chris Yates. While Kessler withdrew the question, the implication lingered.

Jim France Takes the Stand

On the witness stand, Jim France, the youngest son of NASCAR founder Bill France Sr., professed close relationships with many prominent Cup Series owners. However, he denied their primary request: permanent charters. Owners such as Rick Hendrick, Roger Penske, Joe Gibbs, Jack Roush, and Richard Childress had all conveyed the transformative potential of "evergreen" or permanent charters through letters and personal conversations, a sentiment echoed by NASCAR’s senior leadership.

When confronted with this collective plea, France stated, "We did not do evergreen or permanent charters, no," while also claiming no recollection of these owners expressing such desires. Upon being presented with the correspondence, France acknowledged that the letters contained those sentiments.

Regarding a phone call from Joe Gibbs on September 6th, the deadline day, where Gibbs’ daughter-in-law, Heather Gibbs, testified that Coach pleaded, "please don’t do this to us," with an offer he deemed unfair, France could not definitively recall the interaction. He stated, "I’m not sure I did," when asked if he denied the offer. This pattern of selective memory characterized much of France’s testimony, with Kessler noting that France could not provide direct answers to approximately 90 percent of his questions.

During one exchange, France was asked about NASCAR’s projected revenue, stating, "Not sure. I haven’t looked at it." When questioned about distribution money for the current year, he responded, "I’m not aware of that, I’m sorry." His ownership stake in NASCAR was also a point of uncertainty, with France offering a hesitant, "I think so," when asked if the France family owned all the equity. He also could not recall Goldman Sachs’ estimated valuation of NASCAR’s equity at $5 billion or his own presence at a meeting regarding the acquisition of Speedway Motorsports on April 27, 2023, responding, "I might have been. I don’t know." His response to whether he disagreed with the $5 billion valuation was equally vague: "I’m not sure."

This consistent lack of recall mirrored his deposition with Kessler, where France repeatedly stated, "I just don’t remember. I’m sorry." When pressed on his salary, France initially estimated it to be "around $3.5 million range," before conceding to Kessler’s correction of "$3.8" with a "Pretty close. We’ll go with that." This exchange encapsulated the two-hour sparring match between Kessler and France.

The trial also touched upon an emotional letter from Heather Gibbs, which O’Donnell had described as causing France to "swear" aloud. Kessler read the letter in its entirety to France, who maintained that none of it had upset him and that he did not recall reading it aloud. O’Donnell later characterized his earlier description of France’s reaction as an exaggeration, though he did not deny the letter was read in a meeting.

Further discrepancies arose concerning a 2021 meeting of NASCAR senior leadership to prepare for charter negotiations. O’Donnell’s summary to his peers indicated France’s opposition to a "most favored nations" clause, the removal of the three-strikes rule, and France’s personal desire to own charters – all points ultimately ratified in the 2025-2031 agreement. France claimed no memory of participating in this meeting, only acknowledging, "It appears that way," when shown O’Donnell’s email. O’Donnell’s email also reportedly 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’s testimony was anticipated to generate significant attention, the headlines that emerged were unexpected. Having previously testified to attorney Danielle Williams that he desired permanent charters to facilitate the future transfer of Richard Childress Racing (RCR) to his grandsons, Austin and Ty, Childress was blindsided during cross-examination by NASCAR’s attorney, Chris Yates.

Yates began by questioning Childress’s ownership stake in RCR. Initially reluctant to answer, Childress was directed by Judge Kenneth D. Bell to respond truthfully under oath. He revealed that he owns 60 percent of the team, with the remaining 40 percent held by private equity firm Chartwell Investments.

The focus then shifted to conversations Childress had with former NASCAR driver Bobby Hillin Jr. earlier this year regarding Hillin’s potential acquisition of a portion of RCR. The proposed deal involved a group assembled by Hillin acquiring shares from both Childress and Chartwell. Childress again expressed reluctance to answer, prompting another directive from Judge Bell. He stated that Chartwell was seeking to exit the sport and that Hillin had initiated the inquiry. Childress expressed agitation that NASCAR’s attorney had access to this information and made it public, asserting, "This isn’t what we are here for," and noting that all parties involved had signed non-disclosure agreements.

The proposed deal conceptually included the purchase of a third charter. Childress confirmed Hillin had discussed this, but stated he issued a termination letter because "they didn’t have the money, period." Hillin’s group had also reportedly audited RCR’s financial statements, which indicated the team had maintained a positive EBITA (Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) for its entire 55-year history. This revelation also agitated Childress, who believed this information was protected by an NDA. When asked if RCR’s consistent profitability was true, he responded, "I guess."

Following the jury’s dismissal, counsel for 23XI and Front Row requested that NASCAR produce documents pertaining to Hillin’s claims and identify their source. Judge Bell instructed both parties to discuss the matter and present a resolution to the court by 10 p.m. that evening.

Addressing RCR’s perpetual profitability, Childress explained that other businesses under the RCR umbrella 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 other ventures include a manufacturing shop that produces chassis for Xfinity Series teams, as well as military equipment, ECR Engines which supplies powerplants to multiple teams, and a successful vineyard. Despite this, Childress asserted that his other businesses should not be solely dedicated to subsidizing his NASCAR operations, stating, "That money should be going into my bank account (instead of) going to pay my NASCAR teams."

💬 Tinggalkan Komentar dengan Facebook

Author Profile

rifan muazin

Latest entries

• Nascar CupDecember 24, 2025NASCAR Executives Face Scrutiny as Trial Unearths Internal Disagreements on Charter Negotiations
• Nascar CupDecember 24, 2025Hendrick Automotive Group’s Substantial SUV Sale to ICE Sparks Scrutiny Amidst Border Operations
• Nascar CupDecember 24, 2025Red Bull Unveils Striking Livery for Shane van Gisbergen’s No. 97 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 Ahead of 2026 NASCAR Cup Season
• Nascar CupDecember 24, 2025Denny Hamlin Demands Retraction and Apology from SiriusXM NASCAR Hosts Following Lawsuit Settlement