The battle has officially begun. On Day 1 of the NASCAR lawsuit’s trial, the plaintiff’s lawyers came out swinging, aiming their punches at the sports’ most powerful figure, Jim France. And in a surprising turn of events, the sanctioning body’s own internal text messages became 23XI and Front Row Motorsports’ biggest asset, proving that the very leaders who run the sport held its teams in contempt.

Kessler draws first blood in NASCAR lawsuit trial

The NASCAR lawsuit trial’s tone changed from corporate quarrel to full-fledged no-holds-barred antitrust battle as soon as the teams’ attorney, Jeffrey Kessler, appeared before the jury. With no hesitation, Kessler pointed straight at one guy – the chief executive officer, chairman, and executive vice president of NASCAR, Jim France.

Kessler identified Jim as the creator of what he called an “anti-competitive strategy.” The plan, as per Kessler, is designed to keep teams handicapped, dependent, and stuck within a system that is controlled by only NASCAR. Additionally, he promised that over the following two weeks, the jury will see everything in black and white. This includes presenting emails, texts, internal talks, and statements that even NASCAR personnel seemed to believe demonstrated unfair dealings with the teams.

The now-(in)famous summer text chain, in which Steve Phelps referred to NASCAR’s offer to teams as “zero wins” and Steve O’Donnell’s “f— the teams” proposition that would return the sport to its “tiny southern roots, the tiny sport of 1996,” was one of those texts.

Kessler referred to these not only for their shock value. His motive, however, was to emphasize one point: everyone inside NASCAR knew what Jim France was doing. And none of them could stop it.

Kessler said that NASCAR’s September 2024 charter proposal was the pinnacle of that technique. That proposal, if you might remember, was a “take it or leave it” midnight ultimatum that left teams with no leverage and no way forward. Now, as he explained to the jurors, it represents classic monopoly power at work.

He went on to outline every demand that teams claim they were turned down, including $20 million per car, permanent charters, and the ability to veto changes to the competition. All of these requests were allegedly turned down while NASCAR reinforced its hold on the sport’s financial structure. His analogy was as simple as it could be. The teams want to ‘own’ their house (charters) permanently, not rent and renew it every year. And, as Kessler outlined, it would cost NASCAR “absolutely nothing to grant them that ownership.

To drive the idea home, Kessler highlighted three pillars of this control exerted by NASCAR

• track agreements,
• team constraints, and
• the single-source Next Gen model,

before finishing with the financial picture. Despite NASCAR’s $5 billion valuation and $400 million earnings over three years, teams claim in contrast that they are left fighting just to survive. And then came his final strike, as veteran journalist Matt Weaver explained, “Jim France ran this for his family at the expense of the teams.”

It’s not the first time the American sports landscape has witnessed a high-profile antitrust lawsuit. Back in 1986, the USFL sued the NFL for monopolistic practices, and the jury ultimately found the National Football League guilty. However, the USFL was only awarded a symbolic $1 award, which was tripled according to antitrust law to $3. The minimal damages awarded were a major factor in the USFL’s subsequent collapse. Could history repeat itself this time around?

NASCAR fires back

Now, if Jeffrey Kessler tried to show NASCAR as a puppet master with monopolistic controls with his opening remarks, NASCAR lawyer John E. Stephenson took the initiative to destroy that image piece by piece. As per reports, Stephenson was calm, straightforward, and uncompromising in his argument. He explained that the plaintiffs (23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports) were not victims of antitrust abuse, as they claim. Instead, they are irate negotiators, and they only went to court when they were unable to obtain the desired financial terms last year.

Stephenson presented the lawsuit, from the beginning, as an assault on a charter system that NASCAR started in 2016, which had been upheld “with every word and every cent.” He emphasized one point over and over again – until the September 2024 charter deadline passed, neither 23XI nor Front Row ever asserted that the system was anticompetitive for eight years! So, why such a claim all of a sudden?

He underlined that neither monopolistic allegations nor Sherman Act breaches were mentioned in the September 6 letter from 23XI outlining its refusal to sign the deal. Rather, he directed the jury to internal correspondence found during discovery, including an email from Curtis Polk that said, “A lawsuit is our greatest leverage.”

Another email, Stephenson contended, revealed 23XI didn’t even want NASCAR to attend a meeting because “it would build our record.” This was not a negotiation, according to NASCAR, but all a clever strategy. Stephenson also confronted the core of the NASCAR lawsuit head-on.

If charters were such a result of anticompetitive activity, why did 23XI keep buying them, he asked. He further argued that in 2023, why did the plaintiffs praise the business abilities of the France family? Finally, if the non-compete provisions were allegedly coercive, why accept terms that he said were no different than team-to-driver agreements?

By the time he delivered his closing words, Stephenson had compressed NASCAR’s argument into one short but harsh question. “Why are we here?” he asked. And in his account, the answer wasn’t antitrust injustice. It was simply leverage on 23XI and FRM’s part.

What do you think? Whose side are you on?