rifan muazin
The ongoing 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. Lead attorney Jeffrey Kessler, representing the plaintiff teams, has meticulously presented evidence and testimony aimed at demonstrating that NASCAR leadership recognized the teams’ desire for more favorable terms during charter extension negotiations but was ultimately overruled by Jim France.
A recurring theme throughout the week has been the consistent response of "I don’t know" or "I wasn’t there" from NASCAR executives when pressed on specific details within their purview. While the defense has suggested these responses are due to the demanding nature of managing a NASCAR season, Kessler has employed a strategy of highlighting the substantial compensation of these officials, often exceeding seven figures annually in salary and bonuses, to underscore the improbability of such significant knowledge gaps regarding NASCAR’s operational framework. This tactic was previously applied to NASCAR President Steve O’Donnell and was reiterated with Phelps and Jim France on Tuesday.
Kessler’s case aims to construct a narrative where NASCAR’s top brass acknowledged the validity of the race teams’ concerns regarding charter agreements. Emails, including those purportedly written by Phelps, have been presented, yet often met with claims of memory lapse. In one instance, when presented with an email to Rick Hendrick stating, "we wish we could give you permanent charters but Jim doesn’t want that," Phelps claimed no recollection. Similarly, Phelps’ testimony regarding the COVID-19 shutdown saw him recall specific dates – the commencement on March 13, 2020, and the resumption on May 18, 2020 – yet significant details surrounding charter negotiations appeared to elude him.
Phelps’ testimony indicated a progression from initial frustration with Jim France, documented in texts and emails, to ultimately implementing France’s directives. An email to O’Donnell and Prime detailed a stark ultimatum for teams: "Pick a date and they can sign or lose their charters. It is that simple." This assertion contrasts with Phelps’ claims of forgetting many of the contextual details surrounding these communications.
Related News :
- Denny Hamlin Demands Retraction and Apology from SiriusXM NASCAR Hosts Following Lawsuit Settlement
- Chase Elliott Dominates NASCAR’s Popularity Poll for Eighth Consecutive Year
- Earnhardt Jr. Navigates Trepidation as JR Motorsports Eyes Second Daytona 500 Bid
- NASCAR and 23XI Racing Clash Over Courtroom Presence of Key Figures as Antitrust Trial Looms
- Chase Elliott Reflects on "Solid" 2025 NASCAR Season, Identifies Qualifying as Key Improvement Area
Kessler has persistently portrayed Jim France as an unyielding figure who resisted granting teams more advantageous terms, even when his senior staff signaled the potential benefits of doing so. The attorney has also probed into the timing of more restrictive track exclusivity agreements with Speedway Motorsports, coinciding with the Race Team Alliance’s exploration of alternative racing series, such as a mid-week dirt racing series or the nascent SRX tour. Phelps’ response to questions about these agreements was a simple "No idea."
Further scrutiny was directed at private text messages from February 2, 2023, where Phelps, addressing O’Donnell and Prime, urged them to "put a knife in this trash series." Kessler highlighted that this series subsequently ceased to exist, suggesting a direct consequence of NASCAR’s intervention. Phelps attributed his strong language to frustration over teams using sponsors and branding that closely resembled NASCAR’s own. However, this also brought to light past communications where Phelps, then NASCAR President Brent Dewar, pledged to "fight to protect" NASCAR’s competitive space from potential rivals. Kessler’s overarching argument is that France has leveraged NASCAR’s monopsony power—its position as the sole buyer in the market for elite stock car racing teams—to impose unfavorable terms, given the teams’ limited alternatives. Phelps unequivocally denied this assertion.
In the closing moments of his re-examination, Phelps was asked if France’s opposition to permanent charters stemmed from a desire to maintain greater control over the sport’s political landscape. Phelps responded in the negative. Kessler countered by suggesting that permanent charters would prevent NASCAR from revoking them or implementing strategies like operating a series "in-house," to which Phelps conceded, "We couldn’t." Kessler’s attempt to frame Jim France as a "benevolent dictator" was met with an objection from NASCAR’s lead attorney, Chris Yates, though the implication was clear.
Jim France, testifying on his own behalf, acknowledged personal friendships with many prominent Cup Series owners but ultimately denied their most significant request: permanent charters. Letters and personal appeals from team owners like Rick Hendrick, Roger Penske, Joe Gibbs, Jack Roush, and Richard Childress, alongside internal recommendations from NASCAR executives, advocated for "evergreen" or permanent charters. France maintained, "We did not do evergreen or permanent charters, no," and claimed no recollection of these owners expressing such sentiments, despite being presented with documentary evidence.
Regarding a crucial phone call on September 6th from Joe Gibbs, where Heather Gibbs testified that her father-in-law pleaded, "please don’t do this to us," France stated he couldn’t recall such a conversation, nor could he definitively deny it. This pattern of forgetfulness characterized much of France’s testimony, with Kessler noting that France was unable to answer approximately 90% of his questions. This included inquiries about projected NASCAR revenue, distribution money, the ownership structure of NASCAR, and a Goldman Sachs valuation of NASCAR equity at $5 billion. France consistently responded with "Not sure," "I’m not aware of that," or "I don’t recall." When questioned about his own salary, France provided an estimate in the "$3.5 million range," which Kessler corrected to "$3.8 million," with France conceding, "Pretty close. We’ll go with that."
The testimony also touched upon an emotional letter from Heather Gibbs, which O’Donnell claimed caused France to "swear" aloud. However, France stated he was not 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 where NASCAR senior leadership discussed upcoming charter negotiations. An email from O’Donnell to his peers summarized France’s opposition to a "most favored nations" clause, the abolition of the three-strike rule, and France’s desire to own charters—all elements that were subsequently ratified in the 2025-2031 agreement. France initially claimed no recollection of this meeting but later acknowledged its possibility upon review of O’Donnell’s email. O’Donnell’s email also quoted France as stating, "WE ARE IN COMPETITION. WE ARE GOING TO WIN." France, however, did not recall making these remarks.
Richard Childress, a veteran team owner and founder of Richard Childress Racing (RCR), also took the stand. While he testified that his desire for permanent charters was rooted in his intention to eventually pass RCR to his grandsons, Austin and Ty, cross-examination by NASCAR attorney Chris Yates revealed unexpected details. Childress was initially reluctant to disclose his ownership stake in RCR, which was later revealed to be 60%, with the remaining 40% held by private equity firm Chartwell Investments.
Yates then questioned Childress about discussions with former NASCAR driver Bobby Hillin Jr. concerning the potential purchase of a portion of RCR. These discussions, which Childress initially refused to answer, involved a plan for Hillin’s group to acquire shares from both Childress and Chartwell. Childress stated that Chartwell was seeking an exit from the sport and that Hillin had made an inquiry. He expressed agitation that NASCAR’s attorney had made this information public, citing non-disclosure agreements signed by all parties involved. The proposed deal reportedly included the acquisition of a third charter. Childress indicated he issued a termination letter to Hillin’s group due to financial concerns.
Further adding to the tension, Yates brought up an audit of RCR’s financial statements, which reportedly showed consistent profitability (positive EBITA) throughout the team’s 55-year history. Childress, also believing this information was protected by an NDA, confirmed the team’s profitability with a hesitant "I guess." He later clarified that other businesses he operates under the RCR umbrella, including a manufacturing division for military contracts, ECR Engines, and a vineyard, subsidize the Cup teams. Childress asserted that the profits from these ventures should be directed towards his personal accounts rather than supporting his NASCAR operations.
Following the dismissal of the jury, legal teams for 23XI and Front Row Motorsports requested that NASCAR provide documents related to Hillin’s claims and identify their source. Judge Kenneth D. Bell instructed both parties to negotiate a resolution privately and present a unified solution to the court by 10 p.m. that evening.
💬 Tinggalkan Komentar dengan Facebook
Author Profile
Latest entries
Nascar CupJanuary 8, 2026NASCAR Mounts Defense in Antitrust Trial Amidst Conflicting Financial Interpretations
Nascar CupJanuary 8, 2026Jimmie Johnson Returns to NASCAR Truck Series for Hometown Street Race Debut
Nascar CupJanuary 8, 2026Bass Pro Shops CEO Pens Scathing Open Letter to NASCAR Over "Shockingly Offensive" Remarks About Richard Childress
Nascar CupJanuary 8, 2026Chase Elliott’s Iconic No. 9 NAPA Chevrolet to Sport Refreshed Livery for 2026 NASCAR Season
Anshari Taslim
Ali Akbar Rosady