Since October, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have been deadlocked in a legal battle with NASCAR concerning updates to the Cup Series charter agreement for the 2025 season onwards. Although that might sound like a routine labour disagreement, the allegations laid out by the two teams go beyond that as they also accuse the sanctioning body of monopolistic practices.
In 2311 Racing LLC d/b/a 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, Inc. v. National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, LLC and James France, they allege NASCAR violated federal law under the United States’ Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 during negotiations with all Cup teams to renew the charter agreement, the current iteration set to expire at the end of 2024. The lawsuit specifically claims NASCAR had coerced teams into signing the agreement against their will, and added an “ambiguously worded” stipulation that would prevent teams from suing it for abuses of power.
Negotiations between NASCAR and all Cup teams about the agreement have been acrimonious, prompting some to hire antitrust lawyers as early as February; 23XI and FRM turned to Jeffrey L. Kessler, who works with players unions in nearly every major American sports league, to represent them. With Kessler’s help, the two teams formed a case that recalled being told by Chairman Jim France to sign the agreement by the deadline on 6 September, just two days before the start of the playoffs at Atlanta, despite not having reached a final deal on the terms. If not enough teams agreed in time, the agreement would be killed altogether.
NASCAR removed the caveat prohibiting teams from suing on Saturday, meaning 23XI and FRM will be allowed to race in 2025 while the legal process continues. Despite acquiring charters from the recently shuttered Stewart-Haas Racing and already having four of their own, both teams are expected to race without them since they did not sign the agreement in September.
It was among a litany of instances brought up by the plaintiffs to explain how NASCAR has virtually monopolised stock car racing throughout its history. NASCAR has been owned by France and his family since its founding in 1948, and rapidly expanded to become the biggest stock car sanctioning body in the world; in reaching this stage, NASCAR currently owns half of the tracks on the schedule after merging with International Speedway Corporation as well as the ARCA Menards Series; formed five years after NASCAR, ARCA was designed to be a regional complement to NASCAR rather than a competitor, though any possibility of possibly of that was officially snuffed out upon its acquisition in 2020.
The case also contends the Cup Series‘ Next Gen car, introduced in 2022, was in fact a trap that locks teams under NASCAR’s jurisdiction and prevents them from affording to compete elsewhere. The Next Gen car was publicly stated as being created to reduce expenses and promote parity by being a near-spec vehicle that relies on parts sourced from vendors, rather than having teams build the components themselves.
More from the Singapore GP
Catch up with Total Motorsport's latest Singapore GP coverage, including Max Verstappen's victory at Marina Bay, Ferrari's costly strategy gamble, the full race classification, and the updated 2026 Formula 1 Drivers' and Constructors' Championship standings.
23XI and FRM argue the Next Gen is just a “very expensive racing car that can only be used for NASCAR Cup Series races,” pointing out the sanctioning body technically owns the cars and has the final say in what happens to them.
These points, along with NASCAR’s television broadcast deal for 2025 that further increases financial gains for its leadership, add up to form what the suit calls a monopsony. Unlike a monopoly in which a single company holds power over resources in a given industry, a monopsony also controls demand.
“By exploiting its monopsony power over the racing teams, NASCAR has been able to impose anticompetitive terms as a condition of a team’s access to competitions,” asserts the lawsuit.
“By blocking the formation or growth of any competing premier stock car racing series, NASCAR has been able to force the teams to accept take-it-or-leave-it economic conditions in order to compete at the highest level of stock car racing in the United States.”
NASCAR is no stranger to antitrust allegations. In 2002, the Frances were sued by Francis Ferko who claimed it breached contract and broke antitrust laws by not allowing a second race at Texas Motor Speedway as had been supposedly promised by NASCAR; the case was settled two years later with Texas receiving that additional date. Kentucky Speedway sued for the same reason in 2005 to get a Cup race, though it was dismissed by a court and eventually dropped when Speedway Motorsports (who operates most of the tracks not owned by NASCAR) purchased it. Ironically, both rounds are no longer on the Cup calendar.
Owned by Denny Hamlin and Michael Jordan, 23XI Racing respectively fields the #23 and #45 for Bubba Wallace and Tyler Reddick; the latter won the 2024 regular season title before making it to the Championship Round.
Jerry Freeze‘s Front Row Motorsports has the #38 for Todd Gilliland and another car for SHR refugee Noah Gragson. As it currently stands, the four cars, along with two more acquired from SHR, are not guaranteed to qualify for every points race in 2025 as they are considered non-charter teams.
“I hadn’t been in a courtroom since maybe I was 11. I was riding my bike as a kid and a car hit me and they ended up suing me—they lost,” Hamlin recalled.
The Joe Gibbs Racing driver has been one of the most outspoken figures in NASCAR, whose candid opinions have occasionally landed him in hot water with officials.
“My adrenaline was pumping because you hear the arguments and whatnot,” continued Hamlin. “Of course, we feel very adamant on our side of things. When you wake up on Friday morning and you know something is coming, you’re nervous.
“I’ve poured a lot into this sport in multiple ways. Financially over the last four years, I’ve put back a lot of the money I got out of it back into it and all could wiped away pretty quickly. It’s a nervous time for me and we just hope that this thing gets resolved in a peaceful manner or in a correct manner to fix it.
“It’s got its ups and downs, but it’s difficult because you can’t control it. I can’t rely on my instincts or things like that to change the outcome or the results. It’s just the facts are the facts. I’ve just never been a part of anything like this, but certainly hate that we’re in the situation that we’re in after everything that we’ve put into the support over the last four years.”
What are charters?
In layman’s terms, charters are the NASCAR equivalent to the Concorde Agreement in Formula 1 and franchises in stick-and-ball sports. They are not completely identical to those, however, as teams can still compete without having one albeit with caveats.
A car that has a charter is guaranteed a starting position in each points race regardless of their performance. If a team does not have one, also known as “open” cars, they would have to earn their spot on the grid and receive a smaller fraction of the prize money.
36 charters are available. With a full Cup grid consisting of 40 cars, only four open teams will qualify for any given race. NASCAR reserves the right to revoke a team’s charter for underperforming or other legal matter.
Charters were introduced in 2016 in collaboration between NASCAR and the Race Team Alliance, the latter essentially a union of teams. The system has been controversial since its implementation, which the RTA and NASCAR officially say is to increase the value of each team though critics say it only puts more money in the pockets of bigger teams and leaves little room for potential owners to enter the sport.
To this point, a charter typically costs between USD$20 million and $40 million. If a team is struggling to stay afloat, the owner can still walk away with a loaded wallet by selling the charter to an interested party. As such, while the role of charters in improving the racing product is debated, they have too much value for teams to drop by not signing the agreement.
“[T]he teams could either choose not to sign the renewed charters, which would make it economically devastating for them to try to continue to compete as so-called ‘open’ teams and destroy the existing value of their charters (which, even at their artificially decreased value are still worth millions of dollars) or, conversely, agree to NASCAR’s monopsony terms and run the risk of giving up their antitrust rights under the agreements’ release terms,” explained the suit.
Is a boycott or breakaway possible?
In many labour disputes, the simplest option is to walk away in protest and not come back until those in power recognise the dangers it sets. Every major sports league in America has seen player strikes at some point in their histories over disagreements in their collective bargaining agreements.
In the motorsport realm, Formula 1 has seen various races cancelled or on the verge of doing so because of boycotts. The 1969 Belgian Grand Prix and 1970 German Grand Prix did not take place because they refused to race on an unsafe Spa-Francorchamps and Nurburgring, and the latter’s safety concerns nearly resulted in a boycott of the 1976 German GP but narrowly defeated (ironically leading to Niki Lauda nearly losing his life).
Drivers also went on strike prior to the 1982 South African Grand Prix due to a new clause in the Super Licence regulations while the 1985 edition saw some no-shows because of apartheid. Most recently, a Houthi missile strike during practice for the 2022 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix sparked hours of debate among the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association about if they should sit it out, but it ultimately proceeded as scheduled.
On the other hand, while 23XI Racing is by a current driver in Hamlin and he certainly has friends in the garage, it is highly unlikely that they could orchestrate a similar protest. The France family has long quashed attempts to unionise, going so far as to ban Curtis Turner from racing for four years after he tried to form a union for drivers. The Professional Driver Association, essentially a stock car version of the GDPA, was established in 1969 and boycotted that year’s Talladega 500 regarding tyre safety, only for NASCAR to simply bring invite drivers from the lower Grand American division to take part and allow free admission for fans to mitigate the damage. The PDA folded soon after the fiasco.
If protesting at the driver level was not practical, could it be done if a larger party like teams or sponsors threatened to do so? There certainly is precedent, most notably with the split between CART and the Indy Racing League in the 1990s which IndyCar is still recovering from today. F1 teams have also occasionally threatened to withdraw from the sport in opposition to certain FIA policies.
Like the boycott, however, the likelihood of a breakaway series is so low that it is subterranean. Despite unhappiness with NASCAR’s leadership, 23XI and FRM repeatedly stressed that they are still committed to the Cup Series. Running a championship itself is already a difficult venture, as evidenced by the demise of the team-led CART following the open-wheel split, and attempts to do so are perhaps more likely to result in the owners being blackballed than a successful rival.
Of course, the reality hasn’t stopped people from speculating. After all, the lawsuit comes amidst a tumultuous time for the sport as fan and driver criticism of the playoff format has intensified due to a rash of controversies that plagued the 2024 season’s conclusion.
