NASCAR appeared in federal court on Wednesday, seeking the dismissal of an antitrust lawsuit that has been filed against the organization. If the suit is not dismissed, NASCAR requested that the two teams involved be required to post a bond to cover potential fees they would not be entitled to if their lawsuit fails.
During the proceedings, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell expressed urgency for a resolution, indicating a likelihood that the lawsuit would move forward rather than be dismissed. He emphasized that the case must be tried this year, with a trial scheduled for December. The case had previously been overseen by Judge Frank Whitney, who heard initial arguments in early November. Whitney denied a request from the teams, 23XI Racing, co-owned by Michael Jordan, and Front Row Motorsports, owned by Bob Jenkins, to be recognized as chartered teams during the litigation. This decision was subsequently overruled by Judge Bell, who granted an injunction allowing the teams to operate with charter recognition until the end of the 2025 season.
With this ruling, NASCAR argued that it should be allowed to collect a bond from the teams to cover the charter payouts they would receive if they win the suit. This system is rooted in a franchise model introduced in 2016, ensuring 36 cars receive charters granting them guaranteed spots in races and additional financial incentives, while four spots remain open each week. The teams have been engaged in contentious negotiations for an enhanced charter system with NASCAR over the past two years, leading to NASCAR’s take-it-or-leave-it offer presented just days before the playoffs began.
23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports were the only two of the 15 involved teams to reject the new charter agreement and opted instead to pursue legal action against NASCAR and its chairman, Jim France. They claim that NASCAR operates as a monopolistic entity within American stock car racing, arguing that they are not being allocated their fair share of the associated revenue.
Despite their reluctance to proceed without chartering, both teams managed to convince Judge Bell of the potential harm they would face as non-chartered competitors. They presented a case that if Tyler Reddick, the driver of 23XI and last season’s regular season champion, did not race in a guaranteed chartered car, he would gain immediate free agency status. Judge Bell demonstrated a keen understanding of the issues at hand, posing a series of questions about payout structures and the implications of having the teams compete without charter status.
During the discussion, Judge Bell acknowledged that he seldom hears dismissal motions but felt it essential to examine this case closely to facilitate its progress. While expressing a profound dislike for discovery motions, he offered to take personal charge of them, urging both parties to collaborate to minimize disputes. He remarked that the financially responsible party in the discovery phase should cover any associated legal fees.
As things stand, it appears unlikely that the lawsuit will be dismissed; the main question remains whether Judge Bell will enforce NASCAR’s request for a bond prior to the start of the racing season next month. NASCAR insists that they need such financial assurance to ensure funding redistribution to charter teams if 23XI and Front Row ultimately lose.
Prominent legal advocate Jeffery Kessler, who represents the teams, argued that NASCAR has not committed to redistributing the bond proceeds, highlighting that they retain discretion in this matter, which could potentially include applying some funds toward their own legal expenses.
During the hearing, Michael Jordan and Bob Jenkins, who were present at the initial court appearance, were absent this time. However, Denny Hamlin, 23XI’s co-owner, was in attendance with family, while Front Row’s general manager also participated. Judge Bell maintained an engaged atmosphere in the courtroom, even using humor to dissect the arguments presented. When NASCAR’s attorney suggested that the organization’s goal was to cultivate the sport and partner with teams that are non-disparaging, Judge Bell wittily inquired if this meant seeking alliances with teams that do not initiate lawsuits against NASCAR.
Overall, the session demonstrated not only the contentious nature of this legal battle but also the complicated relationship between NASCAR and the racing teams under its umbrella, as both sides prepare for what could be a significant trial ahead.
