Day after day in Charlotte, the antitrust trial has been peeling back layers nobody in NASCAR ever wanted public. What started as a charter fight has turned into a full-on look at how the sport really works. And on Wednesday, when senior sports economist Edward Snyder took the stand, the room got very quiet, very fast.

Snyder didn’t come to yell or point fingers. He came with charts, emails, and cold numbers. And by the time he was done, he had used NASCAR’s own documents to argue that teams have been paid less than they would in a fair market for years, confirming the ‘monopoly’ of the sport.

Economist lays out why NASCAR looks exactly like a monopoly

Snyder’s big point was that every time someone talked about a breakaway series or real competition, the answer inside NASCAR wasn’t “pay the teams more.” It was to tighten the rules, lock the tracks, and make sure nobody could leave.

He walked the jury through internal messages where NASCAR worried about rival leagues, but never once wrote “let’s give teams a bigger cut so they stay.” Instead, they talked about paying tracks for exclusivity, writing charter clauses that stop teams from racing anywhere else, and keeping the Next Gen car on a short leash so nobody can take the technology and run. To an economist, that’s not just smart business. That’s monopoly behavior.

Snyder put NASCAR side by side with other big leagues: the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS, F1, and IndyCar. In those sports, teams own a piece of the pie, can move if they want, and can build value that lasts. In NASCAR, teams rent their spot, can’t race stock cars anywhere else without permission, and watch most of the new money stay in Daytona. He called it suppressing competition off the track, not just regulating it on the track.

The numbers hurt. Teams asked for 33 percent of the new revenue. NASCAR offered 30 and a committee to talk about it later. That’s not partnership. That’s kicking the can. And when teams pushed back, the answer was a contract with a midnight deadline and no real changes.

Snyder’s job is to show damages and explain how much money teams lost because they weren’t free to compete. If the jury buys his math, the entire charter system, track contracts, and business structure could be on the table.

While Snyder was landing his points with data, Judge Kenneth Bell was trying to stop the trial from spiraling into chaos. Lawyers were filing objections at 2:00 a.m., 6:00 a.m., and all night. By morning, the judge had run out of patience.

Judge Bell loses patience

Before the jury even took their seats, he called out both sides. He reminded them that the schedule was clear, the deadlines were not optional, and burying the court in filings before sunrise was not respectful to him or to the nine jurors who left their normal lives to sit through this case. When the jury eventually walked in, the first thirty minutes were wasted sorting out paperwork that should have been settled long before.

Once the jury stepped out again, Bell didn’t soften his tone. He warned that if this case drags to fifteen days instead of ten, the jury might “revolt.” He wasn’t being dramatic. He was making it clear that efficiency matters, and the court will not tolerate unnecessary delays.

Jeffrey Kessler said he expects to finish his side by Tuesday. Bell responded that he wants the schedule kept tight because the case is already at risk of ballooning.

One day, the courtroom hears an economist explain why NASCAR looks like a monopoly using the league’s own internal communications. The next day, the judge is scolding lawyers for wasting time and pushing the jury to the limit. It’s the same case, but two kinds of pressure are closing in fast.

The jury is watching all of it. And when it is finally their turn to decide who is right, they will remember not just the evidence, but how this case was handled at every step.