“The France family and NASCAR are monopoly tyrants. And oppressors will continue to impose their will to harm others until their targets rise up and refuse to be victims. The moment has come.”
This expressive language appears in paragraph 24 of this antitrust lawsuit, which has – for now – completely overshadowed the 2024 playoffs. The case was filed Wednesday morning within the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, the one two teams that refused to sign a brand new charter agreement, are suing NASCAR and CEO Jim France, specializing in the sanctioning body's monopolization of the game. The France family has run NASCAR since its founding in 1948 and has never ceded control of it.
Both teams have retained attorney Jeffrey L. Kessler, a outstanding sports lawyer who has won several antitrust cases, most notably in “McNeil v. NFL,” through which he helped establish unrestricted free agency in sports. His credentials precede him and show how serious these teams are when taking NASCAR to court. Danielle T. Williams, Jeanifer Parsigian, Michael Toomey and Matthew DalSanto were also listed as defensemen. Winston & Strawn LLP is a law firm representing racing teams.
How did we get here?
NASCAR's charter system was introduced in 2016 and was later prolonged for one more 4 years in 2020. Now, with the prospect of a brand new deal looming, there have been extensive discussions between teams and the game's leadership. On Sept. 6, those negotiations got here to an abrupt end when NASCAR sent what the lawsuit calls a “take it or leave it” version of the 2025 contract, giving teams until midnight to sign it or face losing their charters. 13 of the 15 teams agreed, but as everyone knows, two didn’t.
After 23XI Racing Tyler Reddick won the regular season title at Darlington, NASCAR executives weren’t available to present the trophy. “You know, certainly, I'm very disappointed that no one from NASCAR presented Tyler with his trophy,” 23XI co-owner Denny Hamlin said on the time. “It was a little disappointing.” They acknowledged Reddick's achievements the next weekend at a drivers' meeting in Atlanta.
Tyler Reddick, 23XI Racing, Upper Deck Toyota Camry wins 2024 NASCAR Cup Series regular season championship and poses with team owners Curtis Polk, Denny Hamlin and Michael Jordan
Photo: Lesley Ann Miller / Motorsport Images
Allegations against NASCAR
The fundamental point of the 43-page filing centers around NASCAR's monopolization of the game and its aggressive tactics to keep up total control. The lawsuit alleges that the France family “runs NASCAR like a closed-door shop, selling their monopoly in smoky back rooms.”
It cites NASCAR's “anti-competitive restrictions” within the Charter Agreement that – amongst other things – prevent teams from competing elsewhere without permission from NASCAR. He discusses these practices at length, but this is maybe an important sentence: “Because the owners of the 2016 NASCAR charter agreements were independent contractors – and never members of a three way partnership operating a sports league – they were almost definitely doing so for the aim of creating a computational circuit for NASCAR. By prohibiting them from participating in another stock automobile races throughout the 2016 Charter Agreement, NASCAR further created a barrier to competitive entry, which preserved its monopoly position and helps it accomplish that to at the present time. That's why NASCAR holds all of the cards since the teams haven’t any other alternative.
Consolidation of power
The lawsuit details most of the methods by which NASCAR maintains complete control over the world of stock automobile racing. He even cites the game's origins and Bill France Sr.'s audacious union-busting tactics, but he also offers newer examples. He also mentions NASCAR's purchase of International Speedway Corp. for $2 billion. (ISC) and its 12 racetracks, in addition to its acquisition of ARCA, the one other national-level stock automobile racing league within the country. He further claims that NASCAR “enforces exclusive racetrack conditions as a condition of hosting a Cup Series race.”
He cites the introduction of the next-generation automobile as one other way that NASCAR maintains an iron grip over the game, calling it “an exclusionary requirement that further locks down the top stock car racing teams in NASCAR.” The bottom line is that the sanctioning body now has much more control because teams now not construct their very own cars, counting on standard parts and chassis supplied by NASCAR and choose suppliers.
During charter talks, he states that NASCAR has attempted to isolate owners through individual discussions and has resisted just about all efforts by race teams to barter higher terms. It goes on to say that the specter of completely eliminating charter cards was “terrifying to most race teams,” noting how economically devastating it will be to attempt to compete without them. And that only scratches the surface, as many of the lawsuit's pages are spent explaining why it considers NASCAR to be an illegal monopoly.
Todd Gilliland, Front Row Motorsports, CITGARD Ford Mustang, Tyler Reddick, 23XI Racing, Jordan Brand Toyota Camry and Kyle Busch, Richard Childress Racing, Global Industrial Chevrolet Camaro
Photo: Rusty Jarrett / NKP / Motorsport Images
Legal basis of the case
Its fundamental argument relies on the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which essentially ensures the principle of free competition amongst entities engaged in commerce while prohibiting unfair monopolies.
The lawsuit alleges that NASCAR violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act regarding defendant's “agreement, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrict competition.” She also accused NASCAR of violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which deals with monopolization.
What teams want
The lawsuit seeks to have the courts find NASCAR in violation of the aforementioned Sherman Act while also looking for a preliminary injunction against 23XI and FRM that may allow them to proceed to compete as chartered teams in 2025 while the lawsuit continues and “without being subject to a possible demand.” exemption from antitrust claims.” Essentially, they wish to proceed racing as chartered teams, without having to comply with all of the conditions set by the sanctioning body, arguing their legality. This must also be noted, but they may seek compensation from the sanctioning authority.
The lawsuit ends with a requirement for a jury trial. NASCAR has yet to publicly respond.
