CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A federal jury will hear Michael Jordan’s dispute with NASCAR starting Monday, a trial with potential to reshape the nation’s top motorsports series.
The antitrust case was brought by Jordan-owned 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports. It has already produced a trove of internal messages and financial records that illustrate sharp tensions between NASCAR leadership and some team owners. Co-owner and driver Denny Hamlin, who shares ownership of 23XI with Jordan and recently fell short in the Cup Series title race, told fans on social media the trial will expose long-hidden facts, writing, ‘Lies are over starting Monday morning. It’s time for the truth. It’s time for change.’ NASCAR Commissioner Steve Phelps says the organization tried to settle the dispute before it went to court.
What the lawsuit claims
23XI Racing — owned by Hall of Famer Michael Jordan, Denny Hamlin and Curtis Polk — and Front Row Motorsports, owned by Bob Jenkins, were among 15 teams offered renewed charter agreements in late 2024 but refused to sign. The plaintiffs say they and other teams had spent more than two years pushing for improved charter terms, and that the final 2025 offers were inadequate.
Their suit accuses NASCAR of operating as a monopoly, pointing to exclusivity clauses in contracts, NASCAR’s ownership stakes in several Cup venues and tight control over rules and governance. 23XI and Front Row seek monetary relief to cover legal fees and alleged financial harm they say resulted from the charter impasse and from competing without charters this season.
What a charter means
Introduced in 2016, NASCAR’s charter system functions like a franchise model: a charter guarantees a team a spot in the 40-car field for each of the 38 races and allocates a defined share of race-week payouts. Many teams argue the current system isn’t sustainable without changes — seeking permanent rather than renewable charters, bigger shares of revenue and a stronger voice in governance. Finding the 2025 terms unacceptable, 23XI and Front Row declined to sign and filed suit.
NASCAR’s defense and financial backdrop
NASCAR, the sanctioning body founded and long associated with the France family, denies violating antitrust laws and says its business practices are standard. The series points out that 2025 charter payouts rose and that nonchartered ‘open teams’ still have four qualifying spots in each race. Both 23XI and Front Row raced as open teams this season and made every field, but they allege doing so cost them millions in purse revenue.
Pretrial discovery also revealed that NASCAR generated more than $100 million in 2024 — a figure now part of the public record in the case.
Discovery disclosures and tensions
Documents and recordings produced in discovery have revealed sharp private comments from both sides. In internal exchanges, some NASCAR executives derided owner Richard Childress and criticized short‑track promoter Tony Stewart’s SRX series, even discussing ways to undercut it. On the plaintiffs’ side, recordings captured a 23XI executive saying NASCAR chairman Jim France ‘had to die’ to secure better charter terms, Hamlin expressing dislike for the France family, an adviser questioning Hamlin’s business judgment, and Jordan making a remark about losing more money in a casino than he pays a driver. Those candid statements have heightened animosity and drawn intense media attention.
Witnesses and courtroom logistics
NASCAR has sought testimony from top owners Rick Hendrick and Roger Penske; both have resisted full depositions and asked that any questioning be limited to charter-related matters. Each submitted declarations supporting the charter system, reflecting general solidarity among non‑suing teams, many of whom said the 2025 deals still didn’t meet all their requests.
NASCAR also asked the court to limit the courtroom seating of certain plaintiffs to avoid influencing jurors — a move that could affect visible figures such as Jordan and Hamlin. A judge has yet to rule on that request.
Possible outcomes
The parties can still reach a settlement at any stage, even after a verdict or on appeal. If 23XI and Front Row prevail, a jury award could be adjusted by Judge Kenneth Bell and potentially trebled under antitrust statutes. A plaintiff victory could prompt sweeping remedies — from ordering structural changes to the charter system to mandating permanent charters, requiring divestiture of tracks, or even compelling a sale of the sport by the France family.
If NASCAR wins, the suing teams could face existential pressure beyond 2026. Several charters currently set aside would likely be sold; the last charter sale fetched $45 million, and NASCAR says there is substantial interest from prospective buyers, including private equity.
The trial has already peeled back layers of discord in NASCAR’s leadership and business model. Whatever the jury decides, and whether judges shape any remedies on appeal, the outcome could significantly alter how the sport is governed, financed and raced in the years ahead.