Likely outcomes should NASCAR lose antitrust lawsuit in court (2nd Update)

It’s been just over a month since our last deep dive into the potential fallout from the antitrust lawsuit rocking NASCAR’s foundations, and the drama has only escalated.

–by Mark Cipolloni–

Originally filed in October 2024 by 23XI Racing (co-owned by Michael Jordan and Denny Hamlin) and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR and Chairman Jim France, the suit accuses the sanctioning body of monopolistic practices that stifle competition—from controlling 20 of the 38 Cup Series tracks and dictating purse payouts to enforcing single-source suppliers for Next Gen cars and barring teams from rival series. The failed mediation in late October set the stage for a jury trial kicking off December 1, 2025, in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Back then, we speculated on seismic shifts if NASCAR loses: treble damages in the hundreds of millions, a potential overhaul or outright elimination of the charter system, forced divestitures of tracks, and governance reforms that could democratize the sport but risk fragmenting it. With the trial now mere days away, two explosive developments have poured fuel on the fire—newly uncovered internal text messages painting NASCAR officials as aggressive saboteurs of competition, and a looming court ruling that could bench key plaintiff owners from the proceedings. These twists not only bolster the plaintiffs’ monopoly claims but could sway jury perceptions and hasten a settlement to avert total chaos.

Newly Revealed Texts: A “Knife in the Trash Series” and Fan Fury

In a revelation that’s sent shockwaves through the garage and social media, encrypted text messages from 2022–2023 among top NASCAR brass—President Steve Phelps, Chief Operating Officer Steve O’Donnell, and Executive Vice President Ben Kennedy—were made public this week by veteran reporter Bob Pockrass. Shared ahead of trial preparations, the exchanges expose a calculated campaign to undermine Tony Stewart’s upstart SRX series, including efforts to block driver participation and even reclaim a historic track to thwart events.

The messages, exchanged in a private group chat, drip with disdain for competitors. When news broke of Denny Hamlin eyeing an SRX race, one participant griped, “Oh great, another owner racing in SRX.” O’Donnell fired back: “This is NASCAR. Pure and simple. Enough. We need legal to take a shot at this.”

Phelps escalated, labeling the challengers “plain stupid” and urging to “put a knife in this trash Series.” Another thread targeted Stewart personally, with O’Donnell noting, “Lots to get our arms around, but sadly any ‘goodwill’ seems to be lost. So-smiles all around, but behind the scenes we scheme and we win.” NASCAR even timed the announcement of North Wilkesboro Speedway’s revival to derail Dale Earnhardt Jr.’s planned SRX event there.

These texts dovetail directly with the lawsuit’s core allegations under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act: NASCAR’s alleged use of its market dominance to box out rivals, suppress team revenues (teams get about 50% of media rights under the 2025-2031 deal, up from 37% but still deemed below-market), and enforce anti-competitive clauses like waivers of lawsuit rights. By illustrating behind-the-scenes scheming to control tracks, marketing, and driver freedom, the messages could serve as smoking-gun evidence in the nine-juror trial, where roughly 2.5 weeks of testimony will unpack these claims.

Fans erupted on X, with screenshots going viral and cries of “monopoly” echoing far beyond the track. One user quipped, “Oof, smells like monopoly to me,” while another dissected, “Wow, that sounds like some *strong* anti-competitive intent to protect one’s monopoly on stock car racing…” A third lamented the “PR nightmare continues,” and a fourth declared, “Need to put a knife in this trash series,” yeah, they’re cooked.” The backlash underscores eroding trust in NASCAR’s leadership, potentially amplifying calls for reform from drivers via their advisory council.

Courtroom Exclusion Motion: Sidelining 23XI’s Power Trio?

Adding to the tension, a federal judge is poised to grant NASCAR’s bid to bar two of 23XI Racing’s three co-owners from the courtroom during the trial, invoking Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 615. The rule allows exclusion of witnesses to prevent them from tailoring testimony based on others’ accounts, with exceptions only for essential party reps or statutorily required presences. 23XI’s ownership—Michael Jordan, Denny Hamlin, and Curtis Polk—hasn’t been specified for exclusion, but the move targets the team’s heavy hitters amid their expected key roles as witnesses.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell, overseeing the case, issued an order this week continuing consideration of the request. Briefs are due by noon on November 25, 2025, with no replies allowed, and a decision expected shortly after. Legal observers anticipate approval barring “extraordinary circumstances,” which could hobble 23XI’s real-time strategy and morale. As Bell previously chided NASCAR for wanting to “have it both ways—heads we win, tails you lose”—dismissing their counterclaim of plaintiff collusion as mere bargaining—this ruling might even the procedural scales but heighten perceptions of NASCAR’s litigious edge.

The motion caps a string of pretrial skirmishes: a denied preliminary injunction forcing the teams to run as open entries without charter perks; NASCAR’s vow not to sell disputed charters; granted depositions from titans like Rick Hendrick and Roger Penske; and a November 22 deadline for redacted summary-judgment exhibits. With 19 motions already filed, the stage is set for a brutal showdown challenging NASCAR’s business model at its core.

Revisiting Likely Outcomes: How These Developments Tilt the Scales

Our prior analysis—rooted in precedents like NCAA antitrust cases—painted a dire picture for NASCAR if it loses: immediate treble damages (tripled losses from suppressed revenues and valuations since 2020, possibly $300–500 million+ for the plaintiffs alone), legal fees topping $20 million, and ripple effects like jeopardized sponsorships amid fan distrust. Broader costs could include renegotiating the $7.7 billion media deal if exclusivity clauses crumble, with appeals to the 4th Circuit delaying but not derailing change.

Structurally, a defeat might mandate permanent charters with 60–70% revenue splits for teams, open bidding for parts to cut costs and spur innovation, and divestitures of select tracks to foster rival events. NASCAR could abandon charters altogether, reverting to an open grid and risking team exodus, or face oversight like team vetoes on decisions, eroding France family control. Positives for the sport? Enhanced team equity (charters have already pumped $1.5 billion into valuations), better driver deals, and fan perks like cheaper tickets from competition. Downsides: potential fragmentation by 2026, splintered viewership, and copycat suits from tracks or suppliers.

These latest bombshells supercharge the plaintiffs’ narrative. The texts provide concrete proof of “scheming” intent, potentially swaying jurors toward findings of harm across the stock-car market. The exclusion ruling, while tactical, might backfire by portraying NASCAR as bullying underdogs like Jordan and Hamlin—iconic figures whose absence could galvanize sympathy. A veteran insider still pegs settlement as the endgame, given warnings from owners like Childress and Hendrick of “existential threats” to the sport’s ecosystem. But with internal comms now public and the clock ticking, NASCAR’s leverage feels shakier than ever.

As the December 1 gavel drops, one thing’s clear: this isn’t just about charters anymore. It’s a reckoning for NASCAR’s monopoly grip, with outcomes that could redefine stock-car racing—or fracture it beyond repair. Stay tuned; we’ll update as the trial unfolds.

Denny Hamlin met with the media Thursday at Championship 4 media availability in Phoenix and based on what he said, it certainly appears the antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR is headed to a jury trial.

Fox Sports’ Bob Pockrass asked him about his focus this week and the status of reported lawsuit settlement discussions:

Pockrass: …some movement in the lawsuit and more settlement stuff. I’m curious, do you get updates this week or do you ask to be left alone this week?

Hamlin: No. I always get updates, um, about everything. But, you know, mostly that stuff was all through media and not actual, uh, dialog.

Pockrass: So there’s nothing close?

Hamlin: No.

Denny Hamlin said he has been getting updates on the lawsuit this week — he hasn’t asked to just concentrate on racing for the title — but indicated no settlement is imminent. pic.twitter.com/oAeYwUfykJ

— Bob Pockrass (@bobpockrass) October 30, 2025

The ongoing antitrust lawsuit, filed in October 2024 by 23XI Racing (co-owned by Michael Jordan and Denny Hamlin) and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR and its chairman Jim France, centers on allegations of monopolistic and anticompetitive practices in the market for “premier stock-car racing.”

–by Mark Cipolloni–

The teams claim NASCAR leverages its dominance—controlling 20 of 38 Cup Series tracks, dictating purse payouts, mandating single-source suppliers for Next Gen car parts, and prohibiting teams and tracks from engaging with rival series—to impose unfair terms in the 2025-2031 charter agreement.

This includes below-market revenue splits (teams get about 50% of media rights, up from 37% but still deemed insufficient), a clause waiving teams’ right to sue NASCAR, and threats of economic ruin for non-signing teams. Without favorable charters, the plaintiffs argue, their operations are unsustainable, risking shutdowns and broader harm to the sport’s ecosystem.

Recent developments include a failed two-day mediation on October 21-22, 2025, overseen by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell, which could not bridge the divide despite “productive” talks. On October 28, 2025, Bell dismissed NASCAR’s counterclaim alleging illegal collusion by the teams during 2023 charter negotiations, ruling their actions (like a boycott of a team owners’ council meeting) were legitimate bargaining tactics with minimal impact.

The case is now fast-tracked to a jury trial starting December 1, 2025, in Charlotte, North Carolina, following a final pretrial hearing on November 12.

Potential Outcomes if NASCAR Is Found to Have Violated Antitrust Laws

If a jury determines NASCAR violated federal antitrust laws (specifically Section 1 and/or 2 of the Sherman Act, prohibiting unreasonable restraints of trade and monopolization), the consequences could be profound, reshaping the sport’s economics, governance, and competitive landscape.

Remedies would be fashioned post-trial by Judge Bell, potentially including a mix of financial penalties and structural injunctions. While outcomes depend on the jury’s specific findings (e.g., the scope of harm or market definition), here are the most likely implications based on the plaintiffs’ claims and legal precedents in sports antitrust cases (like those involving MLB or the NFL):

1. Financial Penalties and Damages

– Treble Damages to Plaintiffs: The teams seek unspecified monetary damages for alleged losses in revenue, enterprise value, and investment returns, which could be tripled under antitrust law (a statutory multiplier to deter violations). Estimates suggest potential awards in the hundreds of millions, covering harms like reduced media rights shares and suppressed team valuations since at least 2020. For context, the charter system’s introduction in 2016 boosted team equity by over $1.5 billion collectively, but the plaintiffs argue NASCAR’s practices have eroded that for non-favored teams.
– Broader Cost Implications: NASCAR could face legal fees exceeding $10-20 million (already mounting), plus indirect costs like lost sponsorships or media deals if the scandal erodes fan trust. Appeals could delay payments but prolong uncertainty.

2. Injunctive Relief and Structural Changes

– Charter System Overhaul or Elimination: The court could invalidate key provisions of the charter agreement, such as the release-of-claims clause or short-term (7-14 year) durations, mandating permanent or indefinite charters with equitable revenue splits (e.g., closer to 60-70% for teams). NASCAR has warned it views charters as non-essential and could revert to an “open” system without guaranteed race spots or payouts, but a ruling might force reforms to ensure sustainability. This could benefit all 16 chartered teams by increasing their bargaining power and valuations.
– Track Divestiture and Competition Mandates: To curb monopoly power, NASCAR might be ordered to sell some of its 20 owned tracks, allowing independent venues to host rival stock-car events. The league could also be barred from prohibiting teams from using Next Gen cars in non-NASCAR series or tracks from partnering with competitors (e.g., a hypothetical ARCA or new promoter). This echoes remedies in cases like the NCAA’s athlete compensation ruling, potentially sparking a “LIV Golf-style” schism if teams defect.
– Supply and Governance Reforms: Ending single-source supplier mandates could lower costs for teams (e.g., via open bidding for parts) and foster innovation. The court might impose independent oversight, like a team veto on major decisions or revenue audits, diluting France family control.

3. Broader Industry and Market Impacts

– Positive for Teams and Stakeholders: A loss could democratize NASCAR, boosting team revenues by $50-100 million annually through fairer shares, attracting more sponsors and talent. Drivers (via their advisory council) have urged protections in any resolution, potentially leading to better contracts and fan benefits like lower ticket prices from increased competition.
– Risks to NASCAR’s Stability: Structural changes might fragment the sport by 2026, reducing event quality or viewership if teams splinter. NASCAR’s $7.7 billion media deal (through 2031) could face renegotiation if exclusivity clauses are voided, and the league might counter by acquiring more teams (as floated in internal “Project Gold Codes” plans costing $500+ million). Long-term, it could invite copycat suits from tracks or suppliers.
– Appeal and Timeline: NASCAR would likely appeal to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court, delaying implementation by 1-2 years, but bonds for damages could still apply immediately.

In summary, a violation finding would likely prioritize injunctive reforms over pure punishment, aiming to restore competition while preserving NASCAR’s viability. However, the sport’s tight-knit ecosystem—where owners like Richard Childress and Rick Hendrick warn of existential threats—makes a pre-trial settlement more probable than a full breakup. The December trial will hinge on evidence like internal NASCAR communications revealing leverage tactics, with both sides filing 19 pretrial motions to shape the battlefield.