Insider details biggest hurdles for 23XI, FRM and NASCAR as antitrust lawsuit heads to trial

Barring a last-minute settlement, NASCAR will go to trial against 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports in Charlotte on Monday. It’s been an adventure to get to this point — motions, failed settlement talks, etc.

But, at last, we’re here. From the 23XI, FRM side, several hurdles could exist as they aim to prove NASCAR is guilty of monopolistic practices. Bob Pockrass of FOX Sports explained in detail on Sunday:

-Already part of system, bought charters
-23XI turned profit
-Charter payouts up
-Charter sale price up
-TV $ contingent on top teams racing so exclusivity good
-New teams been competitive
-No new series has entered market & failed so no proof

As for NASCAR, they have some challenges as well. Pockrass laid those out in a follow-up tweet:

-Emails/texts showing attitude wanting to crush competition and it had leverage on the teams in negotiations
-Exclusivity clauses for tracks
-Most teams say they lose money while NASCAR made $100M+

23XI/FRM vs. NASCAR: How we got here

Of the 15 Cup Series teams that hold the 36 available charters, 23XI and FRM were the only teams that did not sign the Charter Agreement in August 2024. They filed a joint lawsuit against NASCAR and its CEO Jim France that October, alleging monopolistic practices. 

Multiple attempts at reaching a settlement before trial have failed. Both sides are dug in and believe they have a winning case. Judge Kenneth Bell, however, has made it clear he doesn’t see a winner here.

“It’s hard to picture a winner if this goes to the mat — or to the flag — in this case,” Bell said in June. “It scares me to death to think about what all this is costing.”

Earlier this week, 23XI designated team co-owner Michael Jordan as its corporate representative, meaning he can be in the courtroom for all witness testimony. Michael McCann of Sportico recently explained how Jordan could have a big impact on the case.

“When Jordan testifies, he will be instantly familiar to jurors, which could make his testimony especially impactful,” McCann wrote. “That is also true when he faces cross-examination and is forced to answer difficult questions, including about potential drawbacks to the trial outcome he seeks.”