Key Legal Victory in NASCAR’s Legal Battle
A federal judge issued a significant victory for two racing teams, one owned by Michael Jordan, increasing pressure on NASCAR to resolve the antitrust lawsuit filed against it by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports. NASCAR commissioner Steve Phelps stated last week that the series is “doing everything possible” to resolve the federal antitrust lawsuit, in the most extensive comments yet from the defendants.U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell ruled on Tuesday in favor of 23XI, owned by Jordan and three-time Daytona 500 winner Denny Hamlin, and Front Row, owned by Bob Jenkins, in an argument over the definition of the market for “premier stock car racing.” Bell determined that NASCAR controls the market and that NASCAR’s argument that teams can compete in other series is moot.
The teams asserted, when alleging the relevant market for top-tier stock car racing teams, that “NASCAR’s Cup Series is currently the only buyer.” The argument was supported by the expert opinion of Dr. Daniel Rascher, who concluded that “top-tier stock car racing” is a distinct form of auto racing, and other types of motorsports such as Formula 1 and IndyCar, and all lower levels of stock car racing, are not an equal substitute for NASCAR. NASCAR, in a counterclaim, asserted that the teams illegally conspired by joining together to negotiate new charter agreements, but Bell determined that NASCAR “deliberately, clearly, and unequivocally” alleged that the relevant market is “the market for the entry of cars in NASCAR Cup Series races in the United States and anywhere else a Cup Series race is held.”The lawsuit was filed a year ago by 23XI Racing and Front Row Racing, when they were the only two organizations out of 15 that did not sign extensions to the new charter agreements. The new charter agreements were presented to the teams at the start of the 2024 playoffs with a deadline for them to be signed. This followed more than two years of tense negotiations over the charters, which are the core of NASCAR’s business model, as they guarantee income and access to weekly races. It is likely that 23XI and Front Row will go bankrupt without them and are competing this season without statutes, which entails a significant reduction in prizes. Other teams have asked for an agreement to move forward, but mediation sessions and private negotiations have not worked. The trial is scheduled for December 1st.“The same transaction, the sale and purchase of top-tier stock car racing services, cannot be a different relevant market depending solely on which party is complaining,” Bell wrote. “Simply put, NASCAR made a strategic decision in asserting its counterclaim and must now live with the consequences.”
Kenneth Bell
“This means that the trial can now focus on whether NASCAR has maintained that power through anticompetitive acts and has used that power to harm the teams. We are prepared to present our case to the jury and are focused on obtaining a verdict that benefits all teams, partners, drivers, and fans.” NASCAR, in its own statement, highlighted the commitment it has demonstrated in building NASCAR as the premier motorsports series in the United States since its founding in 1948. Phelps did the same last week while reading a statement that lasted more than six minutes; he defended the France family, based in Florida, which founded and controls NASCAR and most of the tracks that the series uses for events. “NASCAR hopes to demonstrate that it became the leading motorsport in the United States through hard work, risk-taking, and many significant investments over the past 77 years,” NASCAR said in a statement. “Antitrust laws encourage this, and NASCAR has done nothing anticompetitive in building the sport from the ground up since 1948.” “While we respect the Court’s decision, we believe it is legally flawed and will address it at trial and in the Fourth Circuit if necessary. NASCAR believes in the system of charters and will continue to defend it from efforts by 23XI and Front Row to assert that the charter system itself is anticompetitive.”“We are very pleased with the Court’s decision today, which ruled in our favor. Not only does it deny NASCAR’s motion for summary judgment, but it also grants our motion for partial summary judgment, determining that NASCAR has monopoly power in a properly defined market,” said Jeffrey Kessler, the lawyer representing 23XI and Front Row.
Jeffrey Kessler
Most of the organizations that did sign the new charter agreements last year filed statements with the court in support of the charter system and calling for a settlement in the case. All teams want the charters to be permanent, something NASCAR refused to concede during negotiations for the current agreement.
If an agreement isn’t reached before the trial and NASCAR loses, the entire charter system risks being dismantled or revised. Teams are frustrated by that threat, and it’s understood that NASCAR has agreed to make the charters permanent and the sticking point in the agreement talks is the amount of money that 23XI and Front Row are demanding in damages and legal fees.
Teams are concerned that the entire NASCAR framework could be destroyed by a loss and are irritated because it would be due to the monetary demands made by 23XI and Front Row. Bell issued another win last week for 23XI and Front Row when he dismissed NASCAR’s counterclaim against Curtis Polk, Jordan’s longtime business manager and one of the owners of 23XI.
