The attorneys of Michael Jordan-owned 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports filed an opposition memo on Monday in response to NASCAR’s request to dismiss their competitive situation as a “fantasy” replete with mischaracterizations that mask an “unlawful preservation of dominance” as a simple” legal dispute.
The memorandum was signed by Jeffrey Kessler, who famously defeated the NCAA 9-0 at the U. S. Supreme Court in NCAA v. Alston ( 2021 ). Kessler, in truth, cites Alston in the document to color NASCAR as treating race car drivers like the NCAA treats college players. Both, Kessler insists, are “monopolists” that pay” sub-competitive prices” —meaning compensation—to the relevant seller of talent ( i. e., drivers or college athletes ).
The plaintiffs ‘ case is described as a “misguided try to dress up private business concerns in competitive garb,” according to NASCAR’s motion to reject. According to NSCAR, Jordan’s team is attempting to create legal claims that are actually about failing to get its means at the bargaining table. NSCAR contends that 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports are looking for business terms that may set them apart from all the groups that signed contracts, and that the issue primarily concerns luxury and noncompete conditions that are accepted and accepted in the sports market.
Not so hard, Kessler appears to show NASCAR in the document. Kessler maintains that NASCAR, through its Cup Series, “exercises monopsony power” over the proposed market for antitrust scrutiny—premier stock car racing teams —since it has ( Kessler argues ) a 100 % market share.
The foe team 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have signed contracts that contain competitive discounts, according to Kessler. But Kessler maintains those foes “acquiesced” to NASCAR’s “take-it-or-leave-it need” rather than making a significant option. Along those lines, Kessler says rival teams were” under duress” since they had” no viable choice” but to sign. NASCAR has consistently disputed this description, noting how it negotiates with clubs on the terms of the contract. NSCAR also points out that charters guarantee that no staff will receive any unfair treatment or therapy in exchange for the same rights and obligations.
Kessler even criticizes NASCAR, claiming that 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports are “free to compete in any race group that they desire” and that they had yet” start their own competing club.” The prospect of billionaire Jordan, who Sportico last year estimated has earned$ 3.3 billion ( inflation adjusted ) since he joined the NBA in 1984, starting a new racing league is not far-fetched. However, Kessler contends that discussion misses the significance of the cases, which Kessler claims involve requiring teams to recognize monopsony power in exchange for less competitive market terms.
Regarding luxury provisions, Kessler contends that they are not common in a group “owned by a second family” and with teams that are independent contractors, although they are popular in the NFL, NBA, WNBA, and another sports leagues where “teams are joint venture partners who form a league up” and where” they form a league up.” UFC and the PGA Tour have used those rules, but they have had legitimate issues with them.
Lawyers for NASCAR and CEO Jim France, who is also a plaintiff, will have the chance to respond in timely court papers. The events ‘ competing claims will be reviewed by U.S. District Judge Kenneth D. Bell and likely to hold a hearing for them to deliver oral arguments.