rifan muazinThe antitrust trial involving NASCAR, 23XI Racing, and Front Row Motorsports has entered a critical phase, with senior NASCAR officials facing intense questioning from legal representatives for the race teams. A recurring theme throughout the proceedings has been the consistent deflection of specific inquiries by NASCAR officials, who frequently respond with "I don’t know" or "I wasn’t there." This strategy, employed by officials like President Steve O’Donnell, Commissioner Steve Phelps, and CEO Jim France, aims to avoid legally disadvantageous admissions. The defense has countered these claims by highlighting the substantial annual compensation, often exceeding a million dollars in salary and bonuses, received by these executives, suggesting an inherent improbability that individuals in such high-paying roles would lack insight into the organization’s operations.
The core of the plaintiffs’ argument centers on the assertion that numerous NASCAR officials recognized the teams’ need for more favorable terms during charter extension negotiations but were ultimately overruled by Jim France. Evidence presented includes emails, some purportedly written by Phelps, which have been met with claims of memory lapses. For instance, when questioned about specific email content, Phelps stated, "I don’t remember this," prompting attorney Jeffrey Kessler to suggest that his memory might improve under cross-examination by his own counsel. Despite these assertions of forgetfulness, Phelps did recall specific dates, such as the commencement of the COVID-19 shutdown on March 13, 2020, and NASCAR’s return on May 18, 2020.
While O’Donnell was characterized as a "team guy" and internally recognized as such, Phelps’ testimony indicated a progression towards implementing directives from Jim France. An email exchange involving O’Donnell and others revealed Phelps’ frustration with France, culminating in a statement that outlined various options, all carrying the same ultimatum: "Pick a date and they can sign or lose their charters. It is that simple." However, Phelps testified that he had forgotten many of the details surrounding this period.
Kessler has meticulously attempted to portray Jim France as an unyielding figure, steadfast in his refusal to offer more advantageous terms or permanent charters to the teams, even when his senior staff reportedly saw merit in doing so. An email from Phelps to Rick Hendrick stating, "we wish we could give you permanent charters but Jim doesn’t want that," was met with a similar response of "I don’t remember that either" from the Commissioner. Questions regarding the inclusion of more extensive track exclusivity agreements in Speedway Motorsports’ contracts, coinciding with the Race Team Alliance’s exploration of independent racing series, were met with a simple "No idea" from Phelps.
Related News :
- NASCAR Charts a Course Through Legal Battles and Evolving Fan Expectations at Annual "State of the Sport" Address
- NASCAR Cup Series 2025: Unpacking the Internal Team Dominance
- Greg Biffle Leverages Aerial Skills and Logistics Expertise to Aid Hurricane Melissa Survivors in the Caribbean
- 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports Demand Full Depositions from Penske and Hendrick Ahead of Antitrust Trial
- Kyle Larson Clinches NASCAR Cup Series Title Amidst Denny Hamlin’s Heartbreak
Furthermore, private text messages from February 2, 2023, surfaced, in which Phelps expressed to O’Donnell and Prime the need to "put a knife in this trash series." Kessler highlighted this as an example of how actions can lead to the demise of initiatives, referencing the subsequent cessation of that particular series. Phelps defended his statements as mere frustration over teams using "sponsors and colors and liveries that looked a lot like NASCAR." However, an earlier statement to then-NASCAR President Brent Dewar, vowing to "fight to protect" their market from competitors, was also presented. Kessler’s strategy aims to demonstrate France’s alleged use of monopsony power, forcing unfavorable terms on teams due to their limited alternative avenues for competition at the highest level. Phelps firmly denied this assertion.
In the closing moments of Phelps’ re-examination, Kessler probed whether France’s opposition to permanent charters stemmed from a desire to maintain greater control over the sport’s political structure. Phelps responded in the negative. Kessler then posited that permanent charters would prevent NASCAR from revoking them or implementing strategies like operating a series entirely "in-house," to which Phelps conceded, "We couldn’t." The line of questioning concluded with Kessler’s query as to whether teams should trust Jim France to act as a "benevolent dictator," which was met with an objection from NASCAR’s lead attorney, Chris Yates. Although Kessler withdrew the question, the implication was clear.
Jim France Testifies Amidst Recurrent Memory Lapses
On the witness stand, Jim France, son of NASCAR founder Bill France Sr., described having deep friendships with many prominent Cup Series owners, yet he ultimately denied their primary request: permanent charters. Letters and personal appeals from influential figures like Rick Hendrick, Roger Penske, Joe Gibbs, Jack Roush, and Richard Childress, detailing the transformative impact of "evergreen" charters on their businesses, were presented. These appeals were echoed by his senior executives.
When confronted with these testimonies and documented requests, France stated, "We did not do evergreen or permanent charters, no." He further claimed not to recall these owners expressing such sentiments, though he acknowledged the content of the letters when shown. The testimony of Heather Gibbs, Joe Gibbs’ daughter-in-law, regarding a September 6 deadline-day phone call where her father-in-law pleaded with France over an offer he deemed unfair, was met with France’s uncertainty. "I’m not sure I did," he stated when asked if he had denied Gibbs’ plea. This pattern of uncertainty characterized much of France’s testimony, with him unable to answer approximately 90 percent of Kessler’s questions.
A particularly revealing exchange involved questions about NASCAR’s financial performance and structure. When asked about projected revenue, distribution money, and the ownership structure of NASCAR, France repeatedly responded with variations of "Not sure," "I haven’t looked at it," or "I’m not aware of that." His recollection of Goldman Sachs estimating NASCAR’s equity at $5 billion was also met with "I don’t recall." His presence at a meeting regarding the acquisition of Speedway Motorsports was uncertain, stating, "I might have been. I don’t know." When pressed on whether he had reason to disagree with the $5 billion equity valuation, he responded, "I’m not sure." This consistent inability to recall details mirrored his deposition with Kessler, where France frequently stated, "I just don’t remember. I’m sorry."
Even his own compensation proved elusive. When asked about his salary, France estimated, "It’s around $3.5 million range," to which Kessler corrected him with "$3.8." France responded, "Pretty close. We’ll go with that." This two-hour exchange between Kessler and France was marked by such exchanges.
The emotional impact of a letter from Heather Gibbs was also addressed. O’Donnell had previously stated that France "swore" aloud upon reading it. However, France denied being upset by its contents and did not recall reading it aloud. O’Donnell later qualified his statement, admitting he may have exaggerated France’s reaction but did not deny the letter was read in a meeting.
Further discrepancies emerged regarding a 2021 meeting of NASCAR senior leadership to prepare for charter negotiations. O’Donnell’s summary indicated France’s opposition to a "most favored nations" clause, the abolition of the three-strikes rule, and France’s desire to own charters. These points were subsequently ratified in the 2025-2031 agreement. France claimed no memory of participating in this meeting, but when presented with O’Donnell’s email, he conceded, "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 stated, "I don’t recall making those comments."
Richard Childress Faces Unexpected Cross-Examination
Richard Childress, a figure anticipated to make significant statements, instead found himself at the center of unexpected revelations during his testimony. After initially testifying to attorney Danielle Williams about his desire for permanent charters to facilitate the handover of Richard Childress Racing to his grandsons, Austin and Ty, Childress was confronted with pointed questions during cross-examination by NASCAR’s attorney, Chris Yates.
Childress initially resisted disclosing the ownership percentage of his team, but Judge Kenneth D. Bell instructed him to answer truthfully under oath. He revealed that he owns 60 percent of Richard Childress Racing, with the remaining 40 percent held by private equity firm Chartwell Investments. Yates then questioned Childress about discussions with former NASCAR driver Bobby Hillin Jr. concerning Hillin’s exploration of purchasing a portion of the organization. This potential deal would have involved a group led by Hillin acquiring shares from both Childress and Chartwell.
Childress again expressed reluctance to answer, stating, "I don’t want to answer that," before Judge Bell reiterated the requirement to testify truthfully. Childress explained that Chartwell was seeking an exit from the sport and that Hillin had approached him with an inquiry. He became agitated by NASCAR’s attorney making this information public, asserting, "This isn’t what we are here for," and noting that all parties involved had signed non-disclosure agreements. The proposed deal also conceptually included the purchase of a third charter, which Childress confirmed Hillin had discussed. However, Childress stated he issued a termination letter because Hillin’s group "didn’t have the money, period."
The court also heard that Hillin’s group had audited Richard Childress Racing’s financial statements, which reportedly showed the team had maintained a positive EBITA (Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) for all 55 years of its existence. This revelation further agitated Childress, who believed this information was also protected by an NDA. When asked by Yates if the team’s consistent profitability was true, he responded, "I guess."
Following the jury’s dismissal, the attorneys for 23XI and Front Row requested that NASCAR provide documents related to Hillin’s claims and identify their source. Judge Bell directed both parties to discuss the matter and present a resolution before 10 p.m. that evening.
Addressing the perpetual profitability of his racing operations, Childress clarified 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 numerous teams, and a vineyard. Despite this diversification, Childress emphasized that these other businesses should not be solely dedicated to subsidizing his NASCAR endeavors, asserting, "That money should be going into my bank account (instead of) going to pay my NASCAR teams."
π¬ Tinggalkan Komentar dengan Facebook
Author Profile
Latest entries
Nascar CupDecember 17, 2025NASCAR Leaders Face Scrutiny as Trial Unearths Evasive Testimony and Unexpected Revelations- Nascar CupDecember 17, 2025Red Bull Racing Unveils Striking New Liveries for Shane van Gisbergen and Connor Zilisch Ahead of 2026 NASCAR Cup Season
Nascar CupDecember 17, 2025Hendrick Automotive Group Secures $2.25 Million Contract with ICE for SUV Fleet- Nascar CupDecember 16, 2025Rising Star Connor Zilisch Set for GTP Debut in 2026 Rolex 24 at Daytona with Action Express Racing
Jonas Leo
Ali Akbar Rosady