After a relatively quiet week surrounding the Thanksgiving holiday, NASCAR resumed its defense against the 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports antitrust lawsuit with a group of large filings Monday, Dec. 2.
With the majority of the paperwork this week coming from NASCAR’s point of view, it made its perspective apparent, feeling that the teams expect commitments from NASCAR while declining to make commitments of their own, and even calling the teams hypocritical.
All told, NASCAR asked the judge to toss the case.
Here’s a breakdown of these most recent filings.
- In the first filing, NASCAR’s opening argument attempts to weaken the 23XI-FRM lawsuit by showing it is not “a true antitrust case,” claiming the teams “do not wish to challenge as anticompetitive the charters’ broadcast revenue split, as it is undeniably fair and advantageous to them.”
- NASCAR feels the two teams are trying to use the courts as a means to renegotiate just two terms from the new charter that the teams did not agree with.
- The filing invoked the Goodwill provision, which requires “a team participate exclusively in a league.”
- The teams attempted to point to the 2016 charter agreements, NASCAR’s acquisition of the ARCA Menards Series and the ISC tracks, the adoption of Next Gen car requirements in 2019 and NASCAR’s exclusivity agreements as evidence of NASCAR’s monopolistic nature.
- NASCAR invoked the statute of limitations for antitrust claims, which holds that antitrust action has to happen less than four years after the initial action. Each of these instances happened more than four years ago.
- After answering the complaints and defenses, both NASCAR and Jim France filed a motion to dismiss.
- The France motion to dismiss accused the teams of dragging France “into a legal battle motivated by [the teams’] inability to secure all their preferred contractual terms from NASCAR.”
- NASCAR’s dismissal motion shared similar sentiments, calling the lawsuit “a misguided attempt to dress up private business frustrations in antitrust garb” that only shows “dissatisfaction with business negotiations that didn’t go their way.”
- The two terms from the new charter deal NASCAR feels the teams are challenging as anticompetitive are the release and the non-compete. However, NASCAR argues 23XI and FRM, running as open teams, do not have to worry about those two terms. Therefore, “they suffer no concrete injury.”
- “…since they did not sign charters, Plaintiffs are free to race in any racing league that they desire – or start their own competing league.”
- To also note: NASCAR gave another hint at the future of the two former Stewart-Haas Racing charters, saying that the teams “purchased these charters fully aware that they contained a release provision, which needed to be accepted for any requested transfer to be considered.” It still has not said what will happen with these charters, however.
- The gist of NASCAR’s messaging in its motion for dismissal is saying, just because the teams didn’t completely get their way doesn’t mean this is an antitrust case. NASCAR is trying to convince the court that the teams have not done enough to show NASCAR is acting in a monopolistic way.
About the author
Caleb began sports writing in 2023 with The Liberty Champion, where he officially covered his first NASCAR race at Richmond in the spring. While there, Caleb met some of the guys from Frontstretch, and he joined the video editing team after graduating from Liberty University with degrees in Strategic Communications and Sports Journalism. Caleb currently work full-time as a Multi-Media Journalist with LEX 18 News in Lexington, Kentucky and contributes to Frontstretch with writing and video editing. He's also behind-the-scenes or on camera for the Happy Hour Podcast, live every Tuesday night at 7:30!
A daily email update (Monday through Friday) providing racing news, commentary, features, and information from Frontstretch.com
We hate spam. Your email address will not be sold or shared with anyone else.
A very good summary. Thank you. Does anyone know what is actually in the agreement that teams signed? Its been inferred by some that the teams got between 42 and 49% of the TV money, that teams are restricted to 3 charters, but can add 1 non-chartered car (except for JGR and HMS), and that Nascar itself can own charters (which seemed messed up when Penske does the same in IndyCar). Without knowing what is in the agreement, its hard know who bargained away what in negotiations. So there must be a non-disclosure clause in there that the teams signed.
Won’t be long until this case is dismissed. Larson described Hamlin perfectly. Has to be right and have his way on everything. Not sorry a bit Denny that you are going to lose this one and I don’t like the France family.
I feel the same way. The fact that Hamlin is involved in the lawsuit already taints my opinion.
I would have a lot more sympathy for the lawsuit if some of the more established teams had joined. A new team that only been around for a few years (23XI) and a team that has been around a while but never rose above arguably a second tier team (possibly third tier… FRM) just seem like disgruntled participants that aren’t happy with the deal they agreed too.
I agree with another sentiment in this thread. The law is on NASCAR’s side. When the circuit court in Richmond tosses the appeal back to Judge Whitney’s court, this thing will be on life support.
As I have said, Hamlin, Jordan, Jenkins will assume the position before Jim France and Lesa Kennedy and whack, “thank you sir, may I have another. Whack, thank you sir, may I have another………………” They may get to play with the chance of purchasing reduced charters. Or the sport goes on without them.
I chuckle at the poor souls that think Jeffrey Kessler’s success against the NCAA will help. Apples and oranges. NCAA is a membership organization. NASCAR is a private club.
Can’t wait for racing to resume.
Woke NASCAR is caught between a rock and a hard place. They have to go from slobbering all over Michael Jordan to fighting him in court.
The France family slobbers on money only.
Here’s the thing. Whether you agree or disagree with 23XI and FMR is not the question. The question is whether or not the teams were forced into running the current car and buying the puzzle pieces which they cannot build themselves. The answer is yes and it has cost the teams a lot more than what they were told. It’s kind of like going to a restaurant and being told what you are going to eat and then paying for it and not getting enough on your plate or the meal is not what you expected. Granted you don’t have to eat there or race in NASCAR but I can see the problem if you have invested a lot of money into either one. My question is can NASCAR afford to piss off the most famous athlete in the world and still consider themselves a diverse organization. Can they afford to loose that audience? Just a redneck thinking out loud.
No one was forced to do anything.
I’ll stop there.
Regarding “My question is can NASCAR afford to piss off the most famous athlete in the world and still consider themselves a diverse organization”
Should they have to change the way they make decisions in running the sport to prove they are a diverse organization?
No they should not. The point is Nascar made to many changes to fast at the expense of the teams and the fans.