Racing Giants Clash: NASCAR’s Hidden Antitrust Deal

NASCAR just dodged a potential courtroom reckoning over its power and money machine by quietly settling a blockbuster antitrust trial brought by two of its own teams.

Story Snapshot

23XI Racing, co-owned by Michael Jordan, and Front Row Motorsports settled their federal antitrust case against NASCAR on day nine of trial.
The teams said NASCAR’s charter and revenue system created an anti-competitive market that threatened their long-term survival.
Testimony exposed how a family-controlled sanctioning body wields near-total economic power over teams and tracks.
The confidential deal avoids a jury verdict but may quietly rebalance money and control inside the sport.

How a Quiet Settlement Ended a Very Loud Trial

In a Charlotte federal courtroom, NASCAR’s tightly controlled world met the checks and balances of antitrust law when 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports hauled the sanctioning body into a jury trial. After just eight days of damaging testimony and a claimed damage figure north of $300 million, the case ended abruptly on day nine with a confidential settlement. The judge told jurors the outcome would be good for NASCAR, its teams, and ultimately its fans, but no terms were disclosed.

The lawsuit began when NASCAR pushed a 112-page 2025 charter agreement in September 2024, demanding same-day signatures from all Cup organizations. Thirteen of fifteen teams reluctantly signed what they called a take-it-or-leave-it deal, while 23XI and Front Row refused and instead went to court. They alleged the charter and media-revenue structure were tilted toward NASCAR and France-family tracks, creating an anti-competitive market that left independent teams exposed and fighting just to stay in business.

What the Fight Was Really About: Power, Permanence, and Revenue

At the heart of the trial was the charter model NASCAR introduced in 2016, which grants 36 charters that guarantee race entry and a share of media money. Under the old deal, teams received about a quarter of media revenue while tracks took most of the rest. The new 2025 framework raised teams’ share to around 45 percent, but owners argued the overall economics and risk remained lopsided, especially with teams heavily dependent on volatile sponsorship dollars and lacking any permanent franchise-style rights.

Through the Race Team Alliance, the teams pushed for permanent charters, a guaranteed voice in NASCAR governance, and a defined share of future new revenue beyond core media rights. Michael Jordan testified that when he bought into 23XI, he initially did not fully grasp the business model, and once he did, he believed it was not good for teams or long-term investment. He described longtime owners as having been brow-beaten in negotiations for years and said someone had to step forward and challenge the entity for the sport’s future.

The France Family Model Under the Microscope

The trial put NASCAR’s France-family governance model on rare public display. Unlike leagues where teams collectively own the enterprise, NASCAR is a privately held, family-controlled body that owns the Cup Series, writes the rules, controls the schedule, and historically has owned many of the tracks. Charters are renewable grants, not permanent property, meaning NASCAR retains the ultimate say over who races, who gets paid, and whether those economic rights continue or vanish when agreements expire.

NASCAR executives defended this centralized power as necessary flexibility in a rapidly changing media landscape of streaming, shifting broadcasters, and uncertain long-term rights values. President Steve O’Donnell testified that permanent charters would tie the sport’s hands, limiting its ability to adapt and negotiate deals. Teams countered that this so-called flexibility came entirely at their expense, with owners bearing the operational risk while NASCAR and track interests kept ultimate control and a disproportionate share of the rewards.

Why This Matters Beyond the Garage Area

For race fans who care about fair play, competition, and keeping politics and backroom deals out of sports, the case raised fundamental questions about concentrated power. Two mid-tier teams, including one backed by one of America’s most famous athletes, told a federal jury they could be forced out of business under the existing system. Their antitrust challenge was not aimed at a single rule but at NASCAR’s entire economic architecture, arguing that unchecked control over entry and revenue can crush smaller competitors and narrow the field.

#NASCAR settles federal antitrust case filed by 2 of its teams, one owned by NBA great Michael Jordan https://t.co/FyoIveJi7J

— WSFA 12 Sports (@wsfa12sports) December 11, 2025

The settlement means there will be no jury verdict formally labeling NASCAR’s system anti-competitive, and no public injunction spelling out future limits on its power. Still, the very fact that the case reached a full trial, featured testimony from Jordan and top executives, and ended in an agreement both sides called positive signals a shift. Other teams that reluctantly signed the 2025 charter will now negotiate future deals knowing that organized pressure and, if necessary, the courts can force even entrenched sports empires to the table.