![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/FRM-23XI-Reddick-Smith-Gilliland-Herbst-Gragson-Phoenix-2025-Dominic-Aragon.jpg\")
Photo: Dominic Aragon\/TRE<\/p>\nCHARLOTTE, N.C. \u2014 A once-unlikely combo is set to take NASCAR to court Monday in a lawsuit that could change the motorsport forever.<\/p>\n
Photo: Dominic Aragon\/TRE<\/p>\n
Heavyweight attorney Jeffrey Kessler, in union with 23XI Racing\u2019s Michael Jordan and Denny Hamlin; and Front Row Motorsports\u2019 Bob Jenkins, are ready to take on NASCAR\u2019s France family and prove the sport used anticompetitive means to build a monopoly that has harmed their business.<\/p>\n
If the teams succeed, more money and more governance over financial decisions for them could be just the start. <\/p>\n
If they fail, that could be the end of their teams \u2014 and vindication for NASCAR.<\/p>\n
History <\/p>\n
The France family has ruled NASCAR with an iron fist since Bill France founded it in the 1940s. That rule was tested and firmly established in two different instances during the sport\u2019s second full decade in existence.<\/p>\n
In 1961, star drivers Curtis Turner and Tim Flock tried working with the Teamsters Union to get drivers into a union aimed at improving race purses, getting a share in broadcasting rights and ensuring retirement benefits for drivers. NASCAR banned Turner and Flock over it and Bill France threatened to not allow union drivers to race, reportedly even referring to a gun at one point.<\/p>\n
Eight years later, in 1969, when NASCAR was set to race at Talladega for the first time ever, Richard Petty and other stars helped lead a driver boycott over tire issues. <\/p>\n
NASCAR didn\u2019t budge. With many of the top stars on the sidelines, Richard Brickhouse won in a field full of mostly second-tier series drivers. <\/p>\n
A week later, Petty and others came back. Much like what happened with Turner, whose ban was lifted in 1965, everything went back to business as usual.<\/p>\n
However, times have changed.<\/p>\n
NASCAR\u2019s charter system and new rule<\/p>\n
The Race Team Alliance formed in July of 2014 \u201cto create an open forum for the teams to explore areas of common interest and to work collaboratively on initiatives to help preserve, promote and grow the sport of stock car racing.\u201d<\/p>\n
The formation led to the creation of the charter system with the guarantee of 36 teams getting entry into every race and a certain amount of prize money based on (until recently) undisclosed terms and performance metrics. <\/p>\n
That all happened under the rule of NASCAR CEO Brian France, the grandson of Bill France who succeeded Bill France Jr. in 2003 until his arrest in August of 2018. Through many changes to the championship and race formats, sometimes on a whim, as well as the retirements of several stars, the sport lost around half of its viewership and attendance slid at similar rate.<\/p>\n
France\u2019s departure was welcomed by some but it ushered in a new power dynamic. Jim France, the son of Bill France and Brian\u2019s uncle, stepped into the role of CEO in a more reserved way of holding court in the shadows while Commissioner Steve Phelps and President Steve O\u2019Donnell have often spoke publicly on behalf of the sport\u2019s executive leadership. <\/p>\n
The dynamic has come to light in the antitrust lawsuit NASCAR faces. The teams met with NASCAR for negotiations over the 2025 charter agreement that grew increasingly contentious until the sanctioning body allegedly forced an 11th-hour deal that all but two teams signed. <\/p>\n
The lawsuit and where we are today<\/p>\n
Since those two teams sued NASCAR in October of 2024, all has been laid bare publicly.<\/p>\n
From details about the charter system that were once thought to be confidential, to text messages between NASCAR executives that could lead to other possible legal action, to emails revealing communications between teams as they feverishly worked on the deal, the case has already gone farther than anyone imagined before the trial even began.<\/p>\n
All along, Judge Kenneth D. Bell has warned neither side may like it if this case comes down to a jury and him.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn 20 years of litigation, I have never and could never predict what a jury could do,\u201d said JoHanna Cox, a lawyer with Stiletto Group in New Mexico.<\/p>\n
Cox has tried a wide range of civil and criminal cases, pertaining to business and economics to even murder. The NASCAR antitrust case is within Cox\u2019s wheelhouse as she holds a PhD in economics and has raced before.<\/p>\n
What to know about an antitrust case<\/p>\n
According to Cox, there are \u201conly a few remedies a court can issue in an antitrust case\u201d:<\/p>\n
Monetary\/Money<\/p>\n
Discretionary<\/p>\n
The jury will determine this and if the plaintiffs have proven \u201cpreponderance.\u201d <\/p>\n
\u201cIt is not the highest standard. So [if] maybe about 51% of evidence, a little more than half of the evidence, goes in their favor and the jury can follow it, it may go in their favor. It\u2019ll be up to jurors to reach that verdict unanimously,\u201d Cox said.<\/p>\n
If the plaintiff \u2014 the teams \u2014 is successful, the jury will calculate the damages. Then, the judge could award them up to three times that amount, plus legal fees and any other remedies seen fit (More on that later with this case in particular.)<\/p>\n
Possible arguments in the NASCAR antitrust trial<\/p>\n
Coming into the trial, Judge Bell threw out NASCAR\u2019s counterclaim but used the claim\u2019s \u201cmarket definition\u201d to determine the trial will focus on if the motorsport has used anticompetitive acts to maintain monopsony power over the stock racing market.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe judge\u2019s decision, by excluding the counterclaim, limits what the defendants [NASCAR] will be able to present,\u201d Cox said. \u201cThey won\u2019t get to present their claims then against the teams. They can still use different things for defenses, so anything that\u2019s an affirmative defense that could refute or dispute or show that the plaintiffs do not, by a preponderance, meet their respective claims. It\u2019s still allowed and that would still be permissible.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to Cox, NASCAR is likely to argue everything was fully negotiated with the charter agreement and the teams chose not to sign. They may allege they\u2019re not a true monopoly.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s other options available for drivers. They can freely negotiate or not negotiate,\u201d Cox said. \u201cThe plaintiffs expanded their teams, so even if they didn\u2019t turn a profit, they still were making money to expand their team.\u201d<\/p>\n
Cox noted NASCAR\u2019s case also has already some legal backbone to it. A federal appeals judge overturned an injunction put in place for the suing teams. It allowed them to run under the charter agreement and earn the same money as true chartered teams without releasing them from their antitrust case.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Court of Appeals ended up indicating that the specific claims that plaintiffs raised, regarding some of the terms in the contract, is not a basis for antitrust injunctions that they\u2019re seeking here. Although it\u2019s not fully resolving all claims, they [NASCAR] do have that as some of the legal posture in this case that they have going into the trial,\u201d Cox said. <\/p>\n
If the teams can prove there was an antitrust violation, NASCAR could have to pay them the money they didn\u2019t earn while the injunction wasn\u2019t in place plus any other damages. Once it\u2019s in the hands of Judge Bell, NASCAR could also face a scenario where they\u2019d have to sell off some or all of their tracks, give permanent charters to the teams, get rid of exclusivity clauses, nix the NextGen concept \u2014 and\/or do all of that.<\/p>\n
The judge could even throw out the charter system itself.<\/p>\n
If the teams aren\u2019t successful, Cox said, \u201cit\u2019s status quo,\u201d and remaining unchartered with three cars each having no chance at a charter could be fatal.<\/p>\n
What may be brought up during the NASCAR antitrust trial? Who may speak?<\/p>\n
Evidence from the discovery process has ranged from documents showing 23XI Racing turned a profit in the NextGen era to \u2018Gold Codes\u2019 the sanctioning body could invoke to field cars themselves in the event of a team boycott, like the one floated during negotiations crucial to the trial.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s also some indications about negotiations that occurred prior to that. In order for the plaintiffs to meet their claim that they were pressured or it was an \u2018all or nothing\u2019-type of negotiation, they\u2019ll have some of the previous versions or other negotiations in there but the contract, ultimately, is that issue. The scope of the monopoly will be discussed a little bit but the damages portion will also need to be addressed, so those will be more technical,\u201d Cox said.<\/p>\n
Jurors may hear from team owners who can provide insight into the business dealings of a top-tier NASCAR team, as well as economists who can provide broader insight relating to their business and the case, Cox said. <\/p>\n
\u201cThey\u2019re going to have to go through numbers. Plaintiffs claim they\u2019ve lost profits because of this type of structure that NASCAR has so there will be some very technical testimony, both on the contracts and from the economists for damages,\u201d Cox said.<\/p>\n