The lawsuit filed by Front Row Motorsports and Michael Jordan’s co-owns 23XI Racing on Wednesday knocks NASCAR and the community of NASCAR CEO Jim France as “monopolistic jerks.”
However, anticipate NASCAR to build a strong defense that denies the plaintiffs ‘ legal quarrels as being distorted by truth and disregarding NASCAR’s record as a first-movers that created multibillion-dollar industries, drivers, teams, and owners alike.
A dispute over laws, which are essential to NASCAR operating like a professional sports league, is at the center of the complaint. While restricting teams ‘ ability to compete in other wires, rules ensure that clubs can start in NASCAR-sanctioned races. Do those contracts increase NASCAR’s reputation and provide drivers and their groups with professional opportunities, as the key questions of the competitive analysis suggest? Or do they reduce the chances of NASCAR competitors by lowering the overall competitors?

The only two running teams that did not ratify NASCAR’s 2025 contract contract before a date in September are Front Row Motorsports and 23XI Racing, according to the report. According to the problem, the contract agreement includes a release section ( sometimes referred to as a cancellation of redress section ) that requires a drafting group to release any potential legal claims against NASCAR. To prevent possible litigation, these clauses are used in ownership agreements between master leagues.
The defendants contend that NASCAR and co-defendant Jim France, who is NASCAR’s CEO, president and executive vice president, have violated Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
Competition is prohibited by Section 1 from unreasonable restraining opposition in a related market. The accused allegedly conspired with conspirators to reach exclusive agreements granting them the right to host Cup Series races. Additionally, they are accused of requiring racetrack users to adhere to their “unlawful special working rules” in order to be able to host Cup Series competitions.
The unique dealing agreements, as the plaintiffs have argued, lawfully bar racetrack owners from hosting other events, reducing team opportunities and limiting the racing market. Similarly, the defendants demand that the accused effectively” coerced” racing team to recognize the contract conditions, which include noncompete restrictions, through the risk of rejection from key races.
The legitimate teams for 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, which includes Danielle Williams and Jeffrey Kessler of Winston &amp, Strawn, assert that” there are considerably less-restrictive methods” to achieve those goals, despite NASCAR contending that legal limits are economically necessary and have made NASCAR very popular with viewers. If the claimant can demonstrate that the accused has rejected practical, less-restrictive methods, both pro-competitive and anti-competitive aspects of business transactions are considered and are less likely to pass through antitrust scrutiny as a result of this discussion.

To enhance an antitrust declare, the plaintiffs will need to create NASCAR’s dealings harm a related market. The plaintiffs contend that the United States is the place to be since only the country has a top investment race series. The defendants also assert that the top-tier stock car racing team that compete on a circuit are the target market for the products. The plaintiffs contend that because stock car racing is a distinct type of car racing, it is not in the same marketplace for competitive purposes because NASCAR and Formula 1 compete for fans ‘ attention and following TV, sponsorship, and another specialist opportunities.
Additionally, the problem raises a state under Sherman Act Section 2. In this instance, the defendant is accused of having too much power over the purchase of goods and services, in this case, the purchase of the services of top stock car racing team. This is in contrast to cartels, which are similar to conglomerates.
Monopsony states are no new in sports competitive dispute. They have recently been raised by MMA soldiers fighting the UFC and golf fighting the PGA Tour, with both sports companies accused of having very little control over the way the elite athletes purchase the services they perform.
NASCAR is charged with possessing monopsony power by becoming” the only premier stock car racing series in the United States.” Exclusionary contract terms allegedly were used by NASCAR to stifle competition and compel leading stock car racing teams to agree to hefty terms.
NASCAR is also depicted as utilizing purchasing and acquisition strategies to squander the stock car racing landscape. For example, in 2019, NASCAR acquired International Speedway Corporation for$ 2 billion. The move, the plaintiffs insist, “gave NASCAR full control over 13 of the country’s premier racetracks, including Daytona International Speedway and Talladega Superspeedway” and” substantially foreclosed any potential new competitor from being formed”.
A complaint is not a neutral retelling of facts, it presents only one side of an argument and is, by its very nature, biased. NASCAR and France will respond to the complaint and ask for its dismissal in the coming weeks.
In addition to disputing the plaintiffs ‘ narratives and allegations, expect a series of defense arguments.
First, NASCAR could argue it is a single entity, and because Section 1 claims require competing businesses joining hands, NASCAR ca n’t violate Section 1. Likewise, while France is a co-defendant of NASCAR in this litigation, he is obviously part of NASCAR and does n’t act independently from NASCAR.
NASCAR differs structurally from the NFL or NBA, both of which have franchises that compete both on and off the field and who also collaborate to limit their competition, including the sale of broadcasts ( a crucial issue in the ongoing NFL Sunday Ticket antitrust dispute ). The NFL and NBA would not function as standalone businesses because they are operated at the behest of the franchises as leagues. In other words, the NFL without its 32 teams would n’t be an entity. In contrast, the France family is the owner of NASCAR ( see my law review article in the Yale Law Journal for more on the single entity defense in sports antitrust claims ).
The plaintiffs notably include non-defendant and unspecified” co-conspirators” as contributing to NASCAR’s alleged illegal acts. Co-conspirators ‘ inclusion in a defense of a single entity is likely to contribute to the complexity of the case because it suggests that various parties have coordinated alleged misdeeds.
The plaintiffs are also likely to contend that despite NASCAR being a single entity, a single entity defense should fail because NASCAR teams are independent owners. This nuance reflects the unique structure of NASCAR in that although car “NASCAR teams” are unlike” NFL teams” or” NBA teams”, they similarly compete against each other and also, at times, coordinate activities.
NASCAR might also try to refute the Section 1 theory by claiming that charters and other business activities are economically necessary. These measures, NASCAR might assert, have engineered a highly marketable product that has created invaluable opportunities for teams, including 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports.
The plaintiffs make the claim that “NASCAR’s broadcast deals have been worth$ 23.1 billion since 2001,” which implies that NASCAR has acted like a bandit in comparison to the other teams. However, NASCAR might change that opinion to show how its business decisions have resulted in an incredibly well-liked product among fans and media outlets. Also, charters, like exclusivity clauses in UFC and PGA Tour contracts, ensure that high-profile participants will participate in certain events. That enticing factor increases the appeal of those events to media and broadcasting companies, who become more willing to pay for the cost of televising those events. Consider NASCAR to emphasize that the charter system includes standards and benchmarks that promote the sport’s reputation and increase its appeal.
NASCAR can challenge the monopsony claim in a similar way by claiming that it has no rival. NASCAR can argue that it also competes with IndyCar and Formula 1 to name a few other sports and entertainment companies, all of which vie for fans ‘ money and attention.
NASCAR is likely to credit its history as a first-movers in the industry with its success, not anticompetitive practices. NASCAR’s modest origins in the 1940s reflected the initiative and risk-taking of Bill France Sr. and opened doors for other car racing businesses. NSCAR will insist that its popularity is a result of its ability to offer a superior product.
Another plausible defense is that the claims are barred by a release/waiver of recourse provision or are otherwise unreliable. The complaint acknowledges that the 2016 charter agreement has an arbitration provision that, according to NASCAR, requires the plaintiffs to first arbitrate their claims before they can file with the courts. Arbitration is a secret, secret dispute resolution procedure that can last for months or years. When highly developed companies agree to arbitrate, judges are frequently reluctant to dismiss lawsuits that attempt to bypass arbitration.
The complaint contends that the rule ought to not apply to antitrust claims. The complaint contends that the arbitration provision should not prevent the court from issuing an injunction against NASCAR because the same agreement contemplates such a remedy.
NASCAR has won other antitrust lawsuits because of its market dominance. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected an antitrust lawsuit that claimed NASCAR had unlawfully prevented the plaintiff from hosting the Sprint Cup in Kentucky Speedway v. NASCAR ( 2009 ). The court made the observation that NASCAR is a sports organization that can select its hosts to maximize NASCAR’s business objectives.
2311 Racing &amp, Front Row Motorsports v. NASCAR &amp, France was filed in a North Carolina federal court and has been assigned to U. S. District Judge Frank D. Whitney and U. S. Magistrate Judge Susan C. Rodriguez.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages that would be determined by a jury trial as well as a preliminary injunction that would prevent NASCAR from enforcing the release clause described above. Absent a settlement, the case could go on the docket for years, despite the possibility of a preliminary injunction being made in a few months.