In a recent legal development, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have filed motions to dismiss NASCAR’s countersuit against them, labeling it as a “retaliatory” and “desperate” act lacking substantial claims.
This countersuit from NASCAR alleges that the teams, along with Curtis Polk—Michael Jordan’s business manager—violated antitrust laws by engaging in anticompetitive collective conduct during the negotiation of the latest charter agreements.
The dispute centers on the charter agreements introduced in 2016, which guarantee 36 of the 40 spots in each race to teams holding charters, along with associated financial incentives. In September, NASCAR presented new seven-year extensions of these agreements, aligning with the current media rights deal.
However, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports were the only two out of 15 teams that declined to sign the new terms, leading to their initial lawsuit alleging that NASCAR and the France family maintain a monopoly over the sport.
In response, NASCAR filed a countersuit accusing the teams and Polk of orchestrating a collective effort to negotiate terms, which NASCAR claims is anticompetitive behavior. The teams’ recent filing argues that NASCAR’s counterclaim lacks the necessary factual basis, stating, “NASCAR is using the counterclaim to engage in litigation gamesmanship, with the transparent objective of intimidating the other racing teams by threatening them with severe consequences if they support Plaintiffs’ challenge to the unlawful NASCAR monopoly.”
Furthermore, the teams contend that NASCAR’s threat to eliminate the charter system is an empty intimidation tactic aimed at deterring other organizations from supporting the lawsuit. They assert that the counterclaim fails to demonstrate any concerted action in restraint of trade, highlighting that individual negotiations took place between NASCAR and each team, resulting in agreements with 13 of the 15 teams.
Front Row Motorsports, in particular, emphasizes that NASCAR’s allegations do not specify any conduct by their organization that would indicate participation in the alleged conspiracy. They argue that the counterclaim relies on “conclusory or improper group pleading” without identifying specific actions taken by Front Row.
As the legal proceedings continue, there is no set deadline for a judge’s decision on the motions to dismiss. This case underscores the escalating tensions between NASCAR and some of its teams regarding governance and operational control within the sport.
