(Source: Fox Sports) A significant antitrust trial involving two NASCAR teams and the sanctioning body is set to commence on December 1, initiating a 10-day process that could transform the financial framework of stock-car racing. The lawsuit, which was filed 14 months ago by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports (FRM), accuses NASCAR of engaging in anticompetitive behaviors that allegedly hindered teams from functioning within a sustainable economic model.
The lawsuit was initiated by 23XI Racing, co-owned by Denny Hamlin, Michael Jordan, and Curtis Polk, along with FRM, which is owned by Bob Jenkins. The teams opted not to sign NASCAR’s charter agreement for 2025–31 and instead pursued legal action on antitrust grounds. They contend that NASCAR exerts excessive control over the market for premier stock-car racing services, pointing to its ownership of the majority of major racetracks, the implementation of exclusivity clauses in sanctioning agreements, and the enforced single-supplier system for essential Next Gen components.
The teams assert that these practices stifled significant competition and allowed NASCAR to enforce a business model that made it difficult for teams to achieve profitability.
NASCAR Denied Antitrust Violations
NASCAR rejected the allegations, insisting that its business practices fell well within normal competitive behavior and that teams could operate profitably under the new charter structure. Officials pointed to increased charter payouts in the 2025–31 deal and the option for teams to run as “open” entrants — a rule adjusted during litigation — as evidence of competitive flexibility.
What the Trial Would Examine
A six-member jury, with three alternates, would weigh whether NASCAR violated federal antitrust law, which prohibits contracts or conspiracies that restrain trade. The trial was expected to feature testimony from top figures in the sport, including Hamlin, Jordan and members of the France family. Executives from as many as eight additional teams, including Rick Hendrick and Roger Penske, could also be called, along with dueling economic experts.
Because cameras and cell phones are barred in federal court, trial updates were expected only during breaks.
The teams carried the burden of proof, required to show by a “preponderance of the evidence” — not the higher criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” — that NASCAR unlawfully restricted competition.
Potential Outcomes: From Damages to Major Structural Change
If the jury were to favor 23XI and FRM, it would establish the monetary damages, which could vary from minimal sums to over $300,000 for verifiable losses within a four-year period. A judge might then triple those damages in accordance with antitrust legislation.
The judge would also determine structural remedies, which might involve abolishing or modifying the charter system, compelling NASCAR to divest racetracks, eliminating exclusivity clauses, or terminating the single-supplier requirement for Next Gen components. Nevertheless, the involved parties could opt to reach a settlement at any time — whether before the verdict, after it, or during an appeal — and devise their own remedy plan.
Should NASCAR win, 23XI and FRM would continue to lack charters and could potentially face closure by the conclusion of the 2026 season, although they might sell equipment to new charter holders.
Legal experts expected an appeal, particularly given earlier rulings against NASCAR. Judge Kenneth Bell already determined the relevant market to be “premier stock-car racing services,” preventing NASCAR from arguing that teams could simply switch to other series such as IndyCar. NASCAR was expected to challenge that ruling later.
Uncertain Future for Charters — but the System Likely Survives
The fate of 23XI and FRM in receiving charters ultimately hinged on the ruling and any potential settlement discussions. Although NASCAR had no obligation to provide charters to teams that declined to sign the agreement, the financial and operational pressures stemming from a settlement might encourage both parties to reach a compromise.
Nevertheless, the overall charter system was anticipated to stay in place. Completely abolishing it could lead to fresh lawsuits from other teams, and maintaining it would likely be a key aspect of any negotiated settlement awaiting appeal.
While the December trial was poised to outline the future of team-sanctioning relationships, it was improbable that the legal dispute would wrap up by the end of the year. However, once evidence and testimonies became part of the public record, both NASCAR and the teams were expected to encounter increased scrutiny as more internal financial and operational information was disclosed.
