In a dramatic turn of events, two teams from the premier NASCAR Cup Series have taken legal action against the organization itself. Accusations of monopolistic practices and exploitation have been hurled at NASCAR by 23XI and Front Row Motorsports, two of its leading teams. The ongoing litigation has cast a shadow over the future of the Cup Series and the sport as a whole.
The lawsuit filed by 23XI and Front Row Motorsports alleges that NASCAR, under the control of the France family, has unlawfully monopolized the premier stock car racing scene to their personal advantage, while sidelining the interests of the teams, fans, sponsors, and broadcasters. The crux of the teams’ argument hinges on the claim that NASCAR has been stifling competition by discouraging teams from participating in races outside of the NASCAR umbrella, and by absorbing other American stock car series.
The issue gained momentum following a dispute over NASCAR’s charter system, which was implemented in 2016. These charters are essentially guarantees that secure a spot for drivers in every Cup Series race, provided they meet certain NASCAR-defined criteria. The charters possess an intrinsic value and thus, attract outside investment. Investors can recoup their investment if a charter is sold.
However, 23XI and Front Row Motorsports declined to sign the charter extension agreement in 2024, despite experiencing significant pressure from NASCAR. Their refusal was rooted in their belief that NASCAR wasn’t sufficiently benefiting the teams. While the lawsuit remains unresolved, the teams have been granted an injunction that allows them to operate as chartered teams in 2025, until a verdict is reached.
In response, NASCAR has taken the teams to court, accusing them of violating the Sherman Act and thus, breaching antitrust law. NASCAR’s attorney, Chris Yates, stated that the teams were misusing antitrust laws and making unfounded monopolization claims to force a renegotiation of the 2025 charter’s terms. Yates further emphasized that NASCAR had no intention or interest in renegotiating.
NASCAR’s claim also includes an allegation that Curtis Polk, of 23XI and FRM, tried to organize a boycott of a charter-required team owner meeting and a qualifying event. Although the second boycott didn’t materialize, NASCAR asserted that Polk’s actions instigated a collusion among teams to secure more beneficial terms from the charter agreement. In the absence of this collusion, NASCAR argues, the charter agreements would have contained fewer beneficial terms for the race teams.
Jeffrey Kessler, the attorney for 23XI and FRM, countered these allegations, stating that the lawsuit was aimed at making NASCAR more competitive and equitable for the benefit of drivers, fans, sponsors, and teams. He expressed confidence in the lawsuit’s merits and looked forward to presenting the case at trial.
While both lawsuits are still under judicial examination, the outcome will undeniably have a transformative impact on the Cup Series and NASCAR’s future. The case brings into focus the complex relationship between sports organizations and their teams, and the balancing act required to ensure fair competition while maintaining the sport’s growth and success.