NASCAR Teams Narrow Antitrust Focus Ahead of December Trial

In a strategic move to streamline proceedings ahead of a critical December 1, 2025, trial, NASCAR Cup Series teams 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have voluntarily dismissed the Section 1 antitrust claims within their ongoing lawsuit against the racing sanctioning body. This decision, formalized through a filing with the Charlotte federal court, narrows the legal battle to the core allegation of monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The initial lawsuit, filed by the two prominent team owners, centered on accusations that NASCAR’s business practices created an anticompetitive environment that unfairly disadvantaged independent race teams. The dismissal of the Section 1 claim, which typically addresses agreements between multiple parties that restrain trade, signifies a strategic shift by the plaintiffs. Section 1 prohibits actions such as price-fixing or bid-rigging, often involving collusive behavior.

Instead, the focus will now squarely be on the Section 2 claim, which pertains to the alleged unilateral conduct of a single entity to monopolize, or attempt or conspire to monopolize, a relevant market. In this context, the plaintiffs contend that NASCAR, as the dominant governing body of stock car racing, has leveraged its position through anticompetitive means to maintain and expand its monopoly over the sport.

The plaintiffs’ filing explicitly states: “Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), and in order to streamline the issues for trial, Plaintiffs 2311 Racing LLC d/b/a/ 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, Inc. move the Court for an order voluntarily dismissing, with prejudice, Count Two of their Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 107) (the ‘Section 1 claim’), asserted against all Defendants. Plaintiffs are voluntarily dismissing their Section 1 claim so that the upcoming December 1, 2025, trial can focus on Plaintiffs’ Section 2 monopolization claim.”

Related News :

This development follows a series of legal maneuvers. Earlier, a Charlotte federal judge had ruled in favor of 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports concerning the definition of the market relevant to the lawsuit. The week prior to this latest filing, counterclaims brought by NASCAR against the two teams were also dismissed, further shaping the landscape of the legal confrontation.

The Sherman Antitrust Act, enacted in 1890, is the cornerstone of U.S. antitrust law, designed to promote fair competition and prevent monopolies. Section 1 targets agreements that harm competition, while Section 2 addresses the abuse of market power by a single entity. By concentrating on the Section 2 claim, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports aim to prove that NASCAR has engaged in practices that constitute monopolistic behavior, thereby stifling competition and innovation within the sport.

The background to this lawsuit is rooted in the evolving business model of NASCAR. For decades, team ownership was largely characterized by independent entrepreneurs investing their own capital and expertise. However, as the sport has grown, so too has the influence and control exerted by NASCAR itself. The plaintiffs allege that NASCAR’s actions, such as its control over race dates, series regulations, and the distribution of revenue, have created a system that benefits NASCAR and its affiliated entities at the expense of independent team owners.

23XI Racing, co-owned by NBA legend Michael Jordan and NASCAR driver Denny Hamlin, has rapidly ascended the ranks since its inception in 2020. The team has secured multiple victories and championship contention, showcasing its competitive prowess. Front Row Motorsports, a long-standing organization, has also achieved significant success, including a Daytona 500 win in 2011. Both teams represent substantial investments and employ numerous individuals, underscoring the economic stakes involved in this legal dispute.

The core of the Section 2 monopolization claim will likely revolve around demonstrating that NASCAR possesses significant market power and has engaged in exclusionary or predatory conduct to maintain that power. This could encompass a wide range of alleged actions, such as:

Control over Entry and Exit: The extent to which NASCAR dictates which teams can compete, how many cars can participate in races, and the conditions for team formation or dissolution.
Revenue Distribution: The formula by which prize money, sponsorship revenue, and other financial benefits are allocated among teams, potentially favoring certain entities or structures.
Regulation and Rulemaking: The process by which NASCAR sets technical regulations, competition rules, and safety standards, and whether these are implemented in a manner that unfairly advantages some and disadvantages others.
Intellectual Property and Media Rights: NASCAR’s control over its intellectual property, broadcast rights, and the licensing of its brand, and whether these are used to consolidate power and limit independent revenue streams for teams.
The "Charter" System: The introduction and management of the charter system, which guarantees a starting spot in races for charter holders and has been a point of contention regarding its impact on the value and autonomy of non-chartered teams.

The dismissal of the Section 1 claim does not diminish the seriousness of the remaining Section 2 allegations. Indeed, by focusing the trial on a single, powerful entity’s alleged monopolistic practices, the plaintiffs may be able to present a more cohesive and impactful case.

The upcoming trial is expected to involve extensive testimony from key figures within NASCAR and the sport’s business operations. High-profile team owners, including Rick Hendrick and Roger Penske, are reportedly slated for depositions, indicating the breadth of the investigation into NASCAR’s business dealings. These depositions are crucial for gathering evidence and understanding the perspectives of influential figures who have shaped the sport.

NASCAR, as the defendant, will likely argue that its business practices are necessary for the health and stability of the sport, promoting competition, safety, and fan engagement. The organization may contend that its actions are pro-competitive and that any market power it wields is a natural consequence of its success and the inherent structure of motorsports.

The outcome of this lawsuit could have profound implications for the future of NASCAR. A ruling in favor of 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports could lead to significant changes in how NASCAR operates, potentially reshaping revenue-sharing models, team ownership structures, and the overall competitive landscape. Conversely, a NASCAR victory would likely solidify its current business model and regulatory authority.

As the December 1, 2025, trial date approaches, the legal teams for both sides will be intensely preparing their cases. The simplification of the claims allows for a more concentrated legal strategy, focusing on the complex economic arguments inherent in a monopolization case. The racing world will be watching closely to see how this antitrust battle unfolds and what impact it will have on the sport’s trajectory.

The strategic decision to dismiss the Section 1 claim underscores the plaintiffs’ commitment to pursuing their Section 2 monopolization allegations with maximum efficacy. This legal maneuver aims to present a clear and focused argument to the court, highlighting NASCAR’s alleged abuse of market power in a sport that has captivated audiences for generations. The coming months will be critical in determining the future governance and competitive fairness within American stock car racing.