Michael Jordan and the Michael Jordan of sports competitive litigation—attorney Jeffrey Kessler—say in a fresh court filing that NASCAR and its CEO, James France, are acting like a “monopolistic bully” by attacking those heroic” to question their authority”.
NASCAR and France, however, criticize Jordan and Kessler’s request for a preliminary injunction as a “masterclass in disagreement” and a ruse to” protected more income” and more favorable lease terms than they could negotiate at the table.
On Wednesday, the two sides filed their fighting briefs in a North Carolina national court as Front Row Motorsports and 23XI Racing, which Michael Jordan co-owns, continue their competitive case.

In support of their activity for quick revelation, the plaintiffs under the leadership of Jordan, filed a memorandum. Despite not signing NASCAR’s 2025 contract agreement, the two racing teams request a decree from U.S. District Judge Frank D. Whitney that allows them to compete as de facto certified groups. NASCAR may also be unable to enforce a commercial release of competitive claims as a result of the injunction. NSCAR contests a primary order, and on Wednesday it submitted a short outlining its opposition.
In an effort to keep Kessler’s winning streak in sports competitive situations, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have chosen him and Winston &amp, Strawn as their partners.
Kessler, who formerly litigated on behalf of Tom Brady, the USWNT, and other major sports organisations, has gained notoriety for his legal work representing college players who reimburse the NCAA, meetings, and schools over how they repress their requests to halt recruiting and keeping athletes. In 2021, Kessler convinced the U. S. Supreme Court to rule 9-0 against the NCAA in the Alston circumstance, which troubled laws restricting charging players for education-related costs. He also played a significant role in the negotiation of a multibillion-dollar settlement that would end the House, Carter, and Hubbard antitrust disputes by creating a pro-sports-like model where colleges immediately pay athletes in exchange for their services.
NASCAR insisted in a filing last week that Front Row Motorsports and 23XI Racing are attempting to use the competitive identification process as a “weapon” to harm the car rushing sanctioning body. The defendants are furthermore depicted as trying to secure the benefits of contract agreements—which another groups signed—without accepting the obligations. Additionally, NASCAR contends that the defendants must obtain documents before the four-year statute of limitations time for competitive claims.
Kessler raises a number of points in his quick to refute those claims. Since the defendants” should have been preparing,” according to the attorney, his client’s request for accelerated discovery is sensible because they” should have been preparing” to change over documents on October 9. In a monopolies case, he contends that evidence of anticompetitive behavior prior to the statute of limitations time is useful because it can support the determination of exclusionary practices ‘ life and pattern.

Kessler even blasts as unnecessary NASCAR’s “headline-grabbing” description of his lawyer’s demand for duplicates of financials. He contends that a plaintiff who wants to build that a accused generated monopoly profits and caused financial harms will find those documents “directly related” to them.
However, NASCAR’s new processing, authored by Tricia Wilson Magee and other prosecutors from Shumaker, Loop &amp, Kendrick and Latham &amp, Watkins, takes purpose at the plaintiffs ‘ underlying need for a preliminary injunction. According to NASCAR, a tentative order is intended to maintain the status quo, but what 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports want is a more advantageous condition than what conversations led to. NASCAR shell the claimants for criticizing the 2025 contract as exclusionary. In fact, according to NASCAR, the words were bargained and gave the defendants “guaranteed Cup Series race areas and a much larger share of NASCAR’s press revenues.”
NASCAR even stresses event precedent—including Brantmeier v. NCAA, which the NCAA is now winning—that an order should only be granted “in the most remarkable conditions”. Jordan’s party fails to meet that noble standard, NASCAR argues, since they “had their prospect to sign contracts but refused to take it”.
NASCAR also views the plaintiffs ‘ claim that they could lose kindness without a preliminary injunction as being off track. NACAR points out that injunctions are intended to stop irreparable damage, which typically refers to a type of damage that income damages ca n’t later fix. The alleged problems to contest would all be “redressable with cash damages,” according to NASCAR, particularly since 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have already stated they will thrive without charters,” as they have in the past.”
NASCAR makes an extra argument that antitrust laws if apply to it as a sports enterprise. No such business, NASCAR fees, is required” to acknowledge every staff that wants to participate” or “protect teams that do not want to thrive”.
To that point, NASCAR insists luxury provisions are” common across sports” and enhance financial competition, “because they make the product more attractive for broadcasters, fans, and sponsors that have different entertainment options”.
In defending exclusivity clauses, the PGA Tour, UFC, and other sports organizations raise similar issues because they give broadcasters and sponsors the assurance that the best the sport has to offer will compete in the organizations ‘ broadcasted and sponsored events.
As the court weighs whether to grant preliminary injunctions and expedited discovery, watch for additional filings.