Battle Over Monopoly: What’s at Issue
In October 2024, 23XI Racing — co-owned by Michael Jordan — along with Front Row Motorsports filed a federal lawsuit against NASCAR and its leadership, accusing the sanctioning body of monopolistic, anti-competitive behavior under the federal Sherman Act. The heart of the complaint centers on NASCAR’s “charter system,” which grants guaranteed race entries and shapes team revenues and participation. According to the complaint, the charter model — and associated rules such as mandated part suppliers and restrictions on racing outside NASCAR — have stifled competition, inflated costs for teams, and limited economic viability for those outside the inner circle.
Jordan and his fellow plaintiffs argue the charter-based system effectively suppresses fair competition, forcing teams to choose between financial ruin or acquiescence to what they call a closed, cartel-like governance structure.
From Injunction to Appeal: The Legal Path So Far
In the early months of litigation, the court granted a preliminary injunction allowing 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports to race as chartered teams for the 2025 season — despite the fact that they refused to sign NASCAR’s new charter agreement. However, that decision was overturned in June 2025 by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, stripping the teams of that protected status.
Despite the setback, the plaintiffs declined to relent: they continued to press for a full trial, arguing that the underlying structure of NASCAR remains fundamentally unfair and unlawful.
Trial Begins: High Drama in Courtroom
On December 1, 2025, the long-awaited trial opened in Charlotte, North Carolina — drawing wide attention given Jordan’s global fame and the potential implications for the future of stock-car racing.
In the first day of proceedings, Denny Hamlin — co-owner of 23XI Racing — delivered emotional testimony. Hamlin broke down in tears as he recounted the personal and financial sacrifices made in pursuit of competitiveness. Courtroom dynamics turned tense when the presiding judge criticized opening statements from both sides as containing “impermissible arguments,” barring each side from presenting exhibits during opening remarks.
The teams maintain they will show evidence that NASCAR’s charter system and governance structure amount to a de facto monopoly — undermining fair competition, suppressing new entrants, and consolidating power among a few. NASCAR, for its part, argues that the charter system was established to stabilize the sport financially, and that the plaintiffs’ grievances stem from their own decision to reject the 2025 charter terms.
What’s at Stake: A Potential Reshaping of NASCAR
Legal analysts suggest this case could reshape NASCAR’s business model. A victory for Jordan’s side might force NASCAR to dismantle or significantly revise its charter system — possibly moving toward a more league-style structure akin to those used in other major sports, where teams share equity and governance rather than rely on a top-down, monopolistic model.
On the flip side, should the plaintiffs lose — or if NASCAR’s counterclaims gain traction — the result could be devastating for teams like 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports. Potential outcomes include loss of guaranteed race entries, financial instability, or even the disbanding of racing operations.
This trial may be remembered as one of the most significant challenges to the traditional power structure in motorsports. For NASCAR fans, teams, and sponsors, the consequences are enormous — and perhaps a long-overdue reckoning for the governance of stock-car racing in America.
