NASCAR News: Antitrust Lawsuit Trial Update: Days 4 and 5

The NASCAR antitrust trial pitting 23XI Racing (co-owned by Michael Jordan and Denny Hamlin) and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR entered its fourth and fifth days in U.S. District Court in Charlotte, North Carolina, before Judge Kenneth D. Bell.

–by Mark Cipolloni–

The plaintiffs accuse NASCAR of monopolistic practices, including dictating unfavorable charter agreements, controlling tracks and suppliers, and suppressing team revenues, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. They seek $145 million in damages and permanent charters. NASCAR defends its actions as pro-competitive and necessary for the sport’s growth. The trial, expected to last two weeks, featured emotional testimony from key figures, with the pace drawing judicial scrutiny.

Thursday, December 4 (Day 4): Jenkins Wraps Testimony; O’Donnell Takes the Stand

The session focused on the contentious 2025 charter negotiations, with Front Row Motorsports owner Bob Jenkins completing his testimony and NASCAR President Steve O’Donnell beginning his multi-hour appearance.

– Bob Jenkins’ Cross-Examination and Redirect: Jenkins, a fast-food franchiser and lifelong NASCAR fan who has owned Front Row since the early 2000s, reiterated his $100 million personal losses despite a 2021 Daytona 500 win. He described the 2025 charter offer—delivered at 6 p.m. on a Friday with just six hours to sign the 112-page document—as “insulting” and a step backward from prior agreements, lacking permanent charters and fair revenue sharing. Under cross-examination by NASCAR attorney Christopher Buterman, Jenkins admitted that a $20 million annual cost-per-car figure cited in the suit (from a survey of other owners) didn’t apply directly to Front Row. Buterman also highlighted Jenkins’ own “take-it-or-leave-it” tactics in past merger talks with Hamlin and free sponsorship giveaways (e.g., to Long John Silver’s for five races, including the Daytona 500), questioning his commitment to profitability. Jenkins’ Truck Series operations had minimal financial impact, per testimony. Observers noted the jury appeared unsympathetic to NASCAR’s aggressive questioning, viewing Jenkins as relatable.

– Steve O’Donnell’s Direct Testimony: O’Donnell, a 29-year NASCAR veteran promoted to president in early 2025, testified for nearly five hours, defending the charter process as collaborative despite the “take-it-or-leave-it” final offer. He detailed contingency plans presented to NASCAR’s board (including Chairman Jim France, a co-defendant), such as partnering with Speedway Motorsports on multiyear sanctioning agreements with exclusivity clauses to block rival series at tracks. O’Donnell addressed leaked 2022-2023 texts criticizing the SRX Series (a short-lived stock-car competitor that drew stars like Hamlin and Chase Elliott) and veteran owner Richard Childress, framing them as internal frustrations during media rights negotiations. He emphasized threats from rivals like SRX, the non-permanent nature of 2025 charters, and governance issues, including the removal of teams’ “three-strikes” veto power on cost increases. O’Donnell argued this enabled growth, citing the Mexico City race and Amazon Prime Video’s media deal: “We would not have been in Mexico City… and the TV partner would not have paid the money they did.” He also revealed financials, like NASCAR’s $55 million loss on the Chicago street race.

– Judge’s Admonishment: As the day ended, Bell expressed frustration with the trial’s slow pace, urging both sides to streamline questioning: “Use discipline in the questioning of witnesses.” O’Donnell’s testimony resumed Friday morning.

The day underscored the charter saga’s chaos, with 13 of 15 Cup teams signing despite objections, while plaintiffs portrayed NASCAR as bullying smaller owners.

Friday, December 5 (Day 5): Jordan’s Emotional Testimony; Gibbs Highlights Deadline Drama

The morning continued O’Donnell’s cross-examination before shifting to high-profile plaintiffs’ witnesses, including a poignant account from Michael Jordan and emotional testimony from Joe Gibbs Racing’s Heather Gibbs.

– Steve O’Donnell’s Conclusion: Under plaintiffs’ attorney Jeffrey Kessler’s cross, O’Donnell faced scrutiny over contingency plans if teams rejected charters, including potential rival series threats. He defended exclusivity deals as prudent for stability.

– Heather Gibbs’ Testimony: As executive vice president of Joe Gibbs Racing (which signed the 2025 deal), Gibbs delivered dramatic testimony on the frantic six-hour signing window. She described her father-in-law, team owner Joe Gibbs, pleading with France for resolution, calling the non-permanent charters “devastating.” Gibbs’ account painted the deadline as coercive, forcing teams to choose between revenue guarantees and litigation.

– Michael Jordan’s Direct Testimony: The courtroom highlight was Jordan’s hour-long appearance, his first in the trial. The six-time NBA champion, a lifelong NASCAR fan from North Carolina, shared his racing passion—rooted in childhood—and entry as 23XI co-owner in 2020 with Hamlin. He explained forgoing $120 million-plus in charters to sue, viewing NASCAR’s model as unfairly suppressing team values and earnings despite drivers’ risks: “I love the sport… but the way NASCAR is run today is unfair to teams, drivers, sponsors, and fans.” Jordan emphasized bringing an “NBA mentality” to demand a competitive market: “Teams deserve fair treatment… Today’s action shows I’m willing to fight for a competitive market where everyone wins.” He framed the suit as a last resort against “the entity,” risking 23XI’s future to force change, akin to his antitrust wins in college sports (e.g., NIL deals). Cross-examination was pending, but Jordan’s poise and fame drew packed media coverage.

The session adjourned with more witnesses, including potential testimony from Hendrick Motorsports’ Rick Hendrick and Penske Entertainment’s Roger Penske, slated for next week. No settlement indications emerged, keeping the trial on track amid growing scrutiny of NASCAR’s monopoly status (already ruled as such by Bell). The outcome could reshape charters, revenues, and governance—or upend the sport if plaintiffs lose their charters permanently.