Like a high-speed chase that has jumped the fence and landed in a federal courtroom, the legal showdown over NASCAR’s business practices has reached a dramatic flashpoint. This month, the antitrust lawsuit filed by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsport against NASCAR headed into a crucial summary judgment hearing on October 23, with the team owners blaming NASCAR’s power as a ‘benevolent dictatorship.’

A testament to this is the polarizing and promising star, Jeremy Mayfield. He drove for teams like Kranefuss-Haas and Cale Yarborough Motorsports, but his career stride with Penske Racing and later Evernham Motorsports earned him five of his career Cup Series wins over 17 years. But as his own journey ended in the most disturbing of ways, he now stands with the teams, speaking out against his former nemesis.

Jeremy Mayfield backs antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR

Jeremy Mayfield, a scathing critique, commented on 23XI and FRM’s attorney, Jeffrey Kessler’s statement against NASCAR: “Classic NASCAR.. Spin it til the wheels fall off. Atleast they are consistent about one thing,” from the former Cup Series driver perfectly encapsulates the sentiment felt by those who believe the sanctioning body operates with a high-handed, self-serving, and allegedly monopolistic authority.

The consistent ‘thing’ that Mayfield referenced was Kessler’s statement, stating that the recent court hearing validated the claims of anti-competitive actions by the sanctioning body. Kessler asserted, “Today’s hearing confirmed the facts of NASCAR’s monopolistic practices and showed NASCAR for who they are, retaliatory bullies who would rather focus on personal attacks and distract from the facts.”

Kessler emphasized that his clients’ dedication to achieving a more equitable sport remains strong, concluding, “My clients have never been more united and committed to ensuring a fair and competitive sport for all teams, partners, drivers and fans. We’re going to trial to hold NASCAR accountable.” But Mayfield’s accusations reach far beyond this, to the dark side of NASCAR’s story.

In the post-Prohibition era, the sport’s primary founder, Bill France Sr., saw the need to organize the chaotic world of stock car racing, establishing a sanctioning body that would eventually wield near-absolute control over every facet of the sport. In May 2009, Mayfield was suspended indefinitely after NASCAR announced he had tested positive for a recreational drug, later clarified as methamphetamine.

However, Mayfield, who had previously been open about taking Claritin for allergies and Adderall for ADHD, immediately sued NASCAR, claiming they had unfairly suspended and defamed him. A federal judge temporarily lifted the suspension on July 1, 2009, indicating the evidence was compelling enough to question NASCAR’s ruling.

The controversy was amplified when NASCAR Chairman Brian France held a press conference where he stated that Mayfield was suspended for taking a ‘performance-enhancing’ drug and that his prescription medications “were not the cause, and could not be the cause, or his result.” Mayfield contended these statements were “malicious, reckless and false,” pointing to the extreme lengths NASCAR went to discredit him.

The modern battle involving the two teams provides a corporate parallel to Mayfield’s individual struggle, centered on NASCAR’s control of the business and revenue model through the Charter Agreements. These teams refused to sign extensions, arguing that NASCAR’s control over television revenue sharing, where only 25% of the money goes to the teams, with 65% going to the tracks and 10% to NASCAR, is grossly unfair and not in line with other major professional sports.

Beyond the courtroom, a culture of retaliation and heavy-handed discipline has long been woven into the fabric of the on-track competition. For example, the 1956 incident where team owner Carl Kiekhaefer allegedly ordered one of his drivers to wreck rival Herb Thomas to help his lead driver win the title, resulting in Thomas suffering a fractured skull and missing the last three races, ultimately costing him the championship.

So, whether in the pits, the courtroom, the garage, the central theme remains the same: maintaining total control, spinning the narrative until there’s nothing left but its own version of the truth. However, the lawsuit has taken a new turn yet again.

Drivers push for a seat at the NASCAR lawsuit table

The ongoing antitrust lawsuit battle between NASCAR and the Michael Jordan-Denny Hamlin-led 23XI Racing and FRM has taken a surprising turn as the Driver Advisory Council seeks to join the fray. Formed in 2016 to give drivers a stronger voice in the sport, the council, led by Kurt Busch and Jeff Burton, has requested to submit a brief. “The Drivers Advisory Council have asked to be allowed to file a brief… over concerns that any settlement could impact the drivers without their input,” reported Bob Pockrass.

The DAC’s brief emphasized 3 priorities: securing long-term stakes for current and future drivers, establishing a permanent collective voice on major decisions, and ensuring fans continue to enjoy top-tier racing experiences. These goals reflect lessons from the previous charter disputes, where pay and influence for drivers lagged despite contractual stability. The council’s involvement highlights how driver concerns remain central to the sport’s ecosystem.

By formally entering the conversation, the DAC could reshape the dynamics of any settlement, potentially slowing backroom negotiations and forcing NASCAR to reconsider the human element behind the corporate dispute. With the judge weighing the council’s request, the spotlight shifts from team owners and executives to the drivers who risk everything on the track.