CHARLOTTE, N.C. (CN) — Two racing teams are challenging NASCAR, alleging that the car racing organization holds a monopoly over the industry while coercing teams into signing anticompetitive contracts.
In a lawsuit filed on Wednesday, 23XI Racing, a team co-owned by basketball icon Michael Jordan, and Front Row Motorsports assert that racing teams could engage in far more lucrative agreements if competition were not stifled in the field. They note that unlike other major professional sports leagues, such as the NFL and NBA, which equally share television revenues amongst all teams, the contracts available to racing teams yield substantially lower pay.
These two teams missed a recent deadline imposed by NASCAR to sign a new agreement, citing dissatisfaction with the proposed terms. According to them, teams can only negotiate their bargaining power with NASCAR based on numbers, but 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have separated themselves from the other teams by refusing to sign a new pact that would prevent them from pursuing legal action against NASCAR for alleged antitrust violations.
The plaintiffs contend that NASCAR has maintained its status as the sole top-tier racing series in the U.S. by unlawfully suppressing competition. They claim that participation at the highest level is contingent upon agreeing to NASCAR’s stipulations, which prohibit involvement in other motor racing events.
Teams competing in NASCAR’s Cup Series are mandated to use Next Gen cars and procure parts exclusively from NASCAR’s suppliers. The costs for these parts can exceed $3 million annually for each team. Furthermore, these parts remain the property of NASCAR, and teams are restricted from using their cars in any racing events that are not part of NASCAR’s Cup Series. Additionally, NASCAR enforces a limit of seven cars per team and retains the authority to decide whether a damaged vehicle can be repaired or must be entirely replaced.
The plaintiffs also argue that NASCAR has acquired various racetracks across the United States, particularly those that host high-profile events, reserving their use solely for its races. They assert that NASCAR mandates exclusivity for tracks it does not directly own, resulting in a considerable number of tracks remaining unutilized throughout the year.
Notably, in 2020, NASCAR purchased the Automobile Racing Club of America, its closest rival that organized a lower-tier competition known as the Menards Series.
The plaintiffs stated, “NASCAR has precluded any potential competitors from accessing the quality tracks or teams essential for establishing a rival circuit. With no competing premier stock racing series, NASCAR possesses a complete monopsony over premier stock car racing team services, holding a 100% market share in the acquisition of such services within the United States.”
While the France family has always owned NASCAR, the plaintiffs highlight a contrasting structure seen in the NFL and NBA, where the leagues are operated by the teams themselves. This private ownership grants the France family significant negotiating leverage, leading to challenges for teams that resist their terms. Teams that do comply with the agreements often find that a significant portion of their revenue is returned to NASCAR.
The teams pursuing the lawsuit claim they are the only ones that declined to sign a renewed charter, which would effectively bar them from pursuing antitrust actions.
In 2014, a committee known as the Race Team Alliance was established—not as a union—to negotiate“`html
For years, race teams have faced limited flexibility from NASCAR, and as the end of the current charter agreement nears, demands have intensified.
Teams are now calling for permanent charters, which would prevent NASCAR from revoking what is essentially their franchise status within the sport. They are also seeking greater executive authority and an increased share of revenue.
The lawsuit claims that NASCAR’s actions violate the Sherman Act by monopolizing the industry and limiting competitive practices.
“Due to the lack of options to compete in any alternative premier stock car racing series outside of NASCAR, the plaintiffs are left with no choice but to either accept NASCAR’s monopsonistic terms or withdraw from competing in premier stock car racing altogether,” stated the teams, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction that would allow them to sign and race under the 2025 charter agreement while their case is being litigated.
NASCAR has prevailed in earlier monopoly claims; in 2009, Kentucky Speedway lost a lawsuit in which it argued that NASCAR breached antitrust laws by not holding a race at its venue.
NASCAR has not provided a comment in response to the allegations.
Categories / Courts, Law, Sports
Enroll in our weekly newsletter, Closing Arguments, to receive updates on current trials, significant litigation, and major cases and rulings within the courthouses across the United States and globally.
23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports Sue NASCAR: Allegations of Monopoly and Antitrust Violations
Overview of the Lawsuit
In a significant legal move, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have jointly filed an antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR, alleging that the organization engages in monopolistic practices that stifle competition within the racing industry. This lawsuit raises critical questions about governance and competition at the highest levels of motorsport.
Key Allegations in the Lawsuit
- Monopolistic Practices: The suit claims that NASCAR maintains a monopoly over the sport, limiting opportunities for independent teams and constraining competitive balance.
- Restrictive Regulations: Allegations include the enforcement of rules that disproportionately favor larger teams, thereby undermining the viability of smaller, independent competitors.
- Market Manipulation: The plaintiffs argue that NASCAR’s actions lead to artificial limitations on sponsorship and partnership opportunities for smaller teams.
The Implications of Antitrust Violations
If proven, these allegations could have far-reaching implications for NASCAR and its operational framework. Here are some potential impacts:
- Increased Competition: A ruling against NASCAR could open the door for more teams to enter the sport, enhancing competition and potentially leading to more exciting races.
- Financial Repercussions: NASCAR could face significant financial penalties or be required to alter its business practices to comply with antitrust laws.
- Changes in Leadership: The lawsuit might prompt a reevaluation of the leadership within NASCAR, particularly regarding its governance policies.
Background on 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports
23XI Racing was co-founded by NBA legend Michael Jordan and driver Denny Hamlin, launching in 2020. The team has made headlines not just for its competitive spirit but also for its innovative approach to diversity and inclusion in motorsport.
Front Row Motorsports has been a staple in NASCAR since its inception in 2004. The team has consistently aimed to compete at a high level while advocating for the interests of smaller teams within the sport.
Understanding Antitrust Law in Sports
Antitrust laws are designed to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers. In the context of sports, these laws ensure that no single entity can dominate the market to the detriment of competitors and fans. The key components of antitrust law include:
- Market Power: The ability of a company to raise prices or reduce quality without losing customers.
- Anti-competitive Behavior: Practices that prevent or reduce competition in a market.
- Consumer Harm: Any practices that unfairly harm consumers or reduce their choices.
Case Studies of Antitrust Issues in Sports
Several high-profile cases in sports history illustrate the complexities of antitrust laws:
| Case | Year | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| United States v. NCAA | 1984 | Supreme Court ruled against NCAA’s restrictions on televised college football games. |
| American Needle Inc. v. NFL | 2010 | NFL’s collective licensing agreement was deemed anti-competitive. |
| O’Bannon v. NCAA | 2014 | NCAA’s rules regarding athlete compensation were challenged and partially struck down. |
Benefits of a Competitive Racing Environment
Fostering a competitive environment in NASCAR can lead to a variety of benefits, including:
- Innovation: Increased competition encourages teams to innovate with race strategies and technologies.
- Fan Engagement: More competitive races attract a larger audience, boosting fan engagement and loyalty.
- Market Growth: A diverse racing field can lead to increased sponsorship opportunities and revenue generation for the sport.
Possible Outcomes of the Lawsuit
The outcome of this lawsuit could vary significantly, depending on how the courts interpret the evidence and the existing legal framework surrounding sports competition. Possible outcomes include:
- Settlement: NASCAR may choose to settle the lawsuit to avoid protracted litigation and potential damages.
- Changes in Policy: A court ruling may compel NASCAR to modify its regulations to promote a fairer competitive landscape.
- No Action: The lawsuit may be dismissed, allowing NASCAR to continue its current practices.
Conclusion
The antitrust lawsuit filed by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR is a pivotal moment in the sport’s history. As the case unfolds, it will be critical to monitor how it impacts the future of racing, team dynamics, and fan engagement.
First-Hand Experiences in Racing
For teams operating at various levels, navigating the complexities of competition and regulatory frameworks is part of the daily grind. Insights from drivers and team owners reveal the challenges faced by smaller teams in a market dominated by larger entities:
- Resource Allocation: Smaller teams often struggle with funding and resources, making it difficult to compete effectively.
- Finding Sponsorship: Securing sponsorship deals can be more challenging due to the perceived lower visibility of smaller teams.
- Team Dynamics: Collaboration and innovation are essential for smaller teams to carve out their niche in the competitive landscape.
