Motorsport photoMatt WeaverTue, December 2, 2025 at 1:19 AM UTC·12 min readThe 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports v NASCAR antitrust lawsuit trial began in earnest on Monday and included jury selection, opening statements by both parties and the partial testimony of the first witness.
Denny Hamlin.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementBetween the partial testimony of the co-owner of 23XI, which was conducted by Jeanifer Parsigian, a partner at Winston & Strawn, and the opening statement delivered by lead attorney Jeffrey Kessler -- the strategy for the Plaintiffs came into focus.
Read Also:
Everything you need to know about the NASCAR, 23XI and Front Row antitrust trial
23XI, FRM argument
Kessler said the jury will be shown evidence of an anti-competitive strategy orchestrated by NASCAR CEO Jim France over the next two weeks. That evidence, he argued, will come in the form of emails and text messages from lieutenant-executives Steve Phelps, Steve O'Donnell and Scott Prime illustrating an awareness of unfairness towards the teams while negotiating charter extensions.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAn example of this was released over the summer in the form of a text message exchange where Phelps said the offer gave the teams 'zero wins' and that O'Donnell characterized it as a 'fuck the teams' offer that would take NASCAR back to its ‘tiny southern roots, the tiny sport of 1996.’
The below is a loose paraphrase in the absence of recorded audio:
‘The other three executives all knew that NASCAR operates under Jim France, and the family is the board (of directors) and the board is NASCAR, so the board is Jim France, but the three executives reporting to him knew what Jim was doing to the teams,’ Kessler argued.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementThe lead attorney added that NASCAR ultimately took that deal, one his lieutenants argued was a 'bad deal' and ultimately resulted in what has been characterized by several teams as a 'take it or leave it' final offer in September 2024.
“Sign it by midnight or lose your charters,” Kessler said, making his point. “That is monopoly power. That is monopoly injury.”
Kessler said the teams wanted permanent charters and didn’t get them. Kessler said the teams wanted $20 million per car and got $12.5 million. He also said the teams asked for veto power on competition changes, which were not only refused but also lost the ‘three strikes’ provision in the previous charter agreement that gave teams a degree of veto ability.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementRead Also:
How NASCAR's ownership charter system works
Regarding charter permanency, Kessler likened the concept of buying a house versus renting a house in that a leased home can be taken away at the end of the contract. Kessler said teams want to permanently own their figurative house so that they could extract more enterprise value from it.
Further, doing so, he argued would cost NASCAR 'absolutely nothing' but the Sanctioning Body has not conceded that position.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementIn explaining to the jury what a monopsony is, Kessler likened it to any one of them wanting to practice as a nurse.
"If there is only one hospital, and you want to be a nurse, you either take whatever they pay you or you're not going to be a nurse," Kessler said.
Kessler said there were three overarching points to prove the argument:
NASCAR tied up all the tracks with provisions that did not allow them to schedule competitor divisions without approval from the Sanctioning Body NASCAR restricted teams, that if you race in the Cup Series, you can’t race in a competitor division without approval from the Sanctioning Body NASCAR implemented the single-source supplied NextGen car and protected its Intellectual Property from being used by teams outside of NASCAR without permission while also controlling the costs through the purchase of those parts
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementIn wrapping up his opening statements, Kessler again went back to the conviction that Jim France used NASCAR's monopsony status to depress the earning of teams competing in the Cup Series. He said they have expert testimony that shows teams would get 45 percent of NASCAR's value in a fair market and that the likes of Phelps, O'Donnell and Prime knew it.
"What the evidence is going to show is that (Jim) France ran this for his family at the expense of the teams."
Kessler also made some numerical arguments over financials. He said a NASCAR valuation from Goldman Sachs had the Sanctioning Body worth $5 billion. He pointed out that NASCAR made $400 million the past three years.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementThese were just for context around the narrative about the plight of the teams overall.
NASCAR argument
NASCAR attorney John E. Stephenson provided the opening statement for the Sanctioning Body with the trial attorney making his first appearance in court for this case with Chris Yates front and center over the past 15 months.
Stephenson’s argument was consistent from what NASCAR has articulated over the summer. He framed 23XI and Front Row as effectively attacking the charter system, one that NASCAR has honored with every word and ‘every cent’ as agreed upon each time since 2016.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementHe frequently alluded to 23XI and Front Row as having not made any antitrust claims about the charter system until after the extension deadline and when they issued the final offer in September 2024.
“Literally none of these things were raised to NASCAR until the lawsuit was filed,” Stephenson said. “From 2016 to 2024, none of it was brought up.”
Stephenson pointed to a letter from 23XI on September 6 that explained why they were not signing the agreement and that it made no mention of anticompetitive behavior. He said the same of communications with Front Row.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementInstead, the NASCAR position is that 23XI likely always intended to bring a lawsuit if they could not secure the financial terms it sought from the Sanctioning Body. “A lawsuit is our greatest leverage,” Stephenson said of a Curtis Polk (23XI co-owner) email produced in discovery. He also used a frequent NASCAR talking point -- that 23XI and Front Row continue to engage in ‘negotiation through litigation.’
That is what NASCAR says 23XI and Front Row are doing -- suing the Sanctioning Body only in the pursuit of better terms and not with some altruistic pursuit of righting an antitrust wrong.
Stephenson pointed to another Polk email that said of a proposed meeting with NASCAR that ‘I hope they don’t come because it will build our record,’ with the lawyer arguing that 23XI wasn’t negotiating in good faith.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementHe said that private Polk emails from 2023 that expressed ‘admiration’ for the France family’s business acumen and made no reference to anticompetitive behavior.
The NASCAR position continues to be, and it was made by Stephenson to the jury for the first time, that if the charters were such a byproduct of anticompetitive behavior and a ‘bad deal’ then why did 23XI keep buying them?
In responding to 23XI and Front Row’s opening statement about the non-compete clause that teams have to agree to in order to compete in Cup, Stephenson said it is no different than the non-compete clause that drivers sign with teams.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAs for the provision for teams to not compete against NASCAR, Stephenson said that was a trade-off the Sanctioning Body wanted from teams in exchange for greater guaranteed revenue.
“Be all in on NASCAR Stock Car racing, is what that says,” Stephenson argued. “You’re getting guaranteed money. They agreed to it. They never made claims against it until filing their lawsuit.”
About 23XI and Front Row’s claim that NASCAR’s merger with sister-company International Speedway Corporation was an anti-competitive measure to secure tracks and maintain their monopsony, Stephenson said it was about ‘schedule flexibility’ and ‘innovation’ because NASCAR needed to take risks for events like Downtown Chicago and Downtown Los Angeles -- despite owning nearby racetracks.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementMaking those decisions, or decisions that resulted in a loss were things NASCAR or ISC couldn’t do as a publicly traded entity.
Stephenson repeatedly asked ‘why are we here,’ and pointed to Polk as having a pre-meditated plan to bring NASCAR to trial if unable to secure the charter terms 23XI and Front Row sought.
Hamlin testimony
The day ended with 40 minutes of testimony from Hamlin. These were friendly questions from his own legal team and he will be cross-examined at some point early on Tuesday morning once Parsigian concludes her questions.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementThe day began with Judge Kenneth D. Bell ruling on a NASCAR motion that sought to have only one of the three 23XI owners in the court room to hear all testimony. Bell was ‘reluctant’ to grant that motion, but not wanting to risk a re-trial on technical grounds, he ruled in NASCAR’s favor.
That meant 23XI had to designate that sole representative, which was Jordan, but since Hamlin is the first witness, he will be able to sit on the bench for the rest of the trial once he’s done.
Polk can join them upon concluding his time on the stand, whenever that comes.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementParsigian opened the line of questioning with the basics.
Parsigian: "Did you graduate?"Hamlin: "They gave me a diploma."
Parsigian: "How did your most recent season go?"Hamlin:"Can I plead the fifth?"Parsigian: "I don't think anyone is prosecuting you."Hamlin: "I was leading the championship race with three to go. The caution came out. I lost."
Read Also:
Denny Hamlin confirms 2026 status, addresses championship loss
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementThere seemed to be a strategy of bringing up that teams frequently compete with NASCAR for sponsorships because Hamlin brought it up three times under questioning from his own attorney.
For example, what allowed 23XI to purchase the Germain Racing team charter in 2021?
"They lost their sponsorship (GEICO) to NASCAR and went out of business."
What are Hamlin’s responsibilities at 23XI as a co-owner? It’s competition and sponsorship, calling himself a ‘professional fundraiser’ but again brought up that this means frequently competing with NASCAR.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementWhy did 23XI spend $35 million to build its state of the art ‘Airspeed’ race shop? Hamlin said it was their best foot forward to secure additional sponsorship and hire the best employees on the market.
But again, he said he has to compete with NASCAR when a potential sponsor expresses interest in joining the sport.
"First, I have to fend off the series,” Hamlin said. “If a new sponsor want to come in, NASCAR will go after them. I have to fight them. I have to fight other teams for them. I have to fight them for employees."
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementHamlin also got emotional when asked how he got started in racing and made it to NASCAR. He brought up the contributions from his parents, especially his dad, who is now publicly known to be in fading health.
He said the cost to field a Cup car, just to get it on the track is $20 million, and that the current charter agreement covers $12.5 million of that. The rest needs to be covered by sponsorship.
Which, Hamlin concedes, that having Jordan as a co-owner is why they can turn profits where other teams cannot. It’s what made Jordan appealing as a potential co-owner for the team he always wanted to own in his post-driving days.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementParsigian asked Hamlin if he felt the charter agreement is fair and he brought up that 11 of the original 19 charter teams from 2016 have closed.
"If the terms were fair, they wouldn't have gone out of business,” Hamlin said. “Only one side is going out of business."
Hamlin said 23XI profits frequently fluctuate for reasons NASCAR controls -- like mid-season rules updates which can sometimes cost $1.5 million per car and international races like the one held in Mexico City this past season.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAnecdotally, Hamlin also revealed that 23XI Racing pays Joe Gibbs Racing $2.66 million per car a season for an alliance fee since JGR is the primary Toyota organization. He was asked why his team has just 140 employees compared to the 500 of a team like JGR.
Hamlin also said his business partners ask him to run 23XI as lean as possible.
It was at this point that the clock struck 5 p.m. and Judge Bell has indicated that he wants to end each day around this time and no later than 5:15 p.m. with each day starting at 9:00 a.m.
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementJury selection and witness list
This day opened with jury selection and the revelation of potential witnesses on each side as well.
NASCAR: Jim France, Lesa France Kennedy, Ben Kennedy, Brian Herbst, Steve O’Donnell, Steve Phelps, Scott Prime, Tim Clark, Greg Motto, John Probst and Ron Drager.
Teams: Richard Childress, Rick Hendrick, Roger Penske, Heather Gibbs, Cal Wells III, Steve Newmark, Rob Kauffman and Jonathan Marshall.
It took a little over two hours to get to the six-man, three-woman jury. Bell, Kessler and Stephenson each took time with the prospective jurors before landing on the final nine.
One juror candidate was dismissed for working at Hendrick Automotive Group and another was dismissed for knowing a great deal about NASCAR and the parties involved. They were all asked, amongst other questions, if they were familiar with Michael Jordan and if they had strong opinions about one way or the other.
One candidate said ‘yes.’ Judge Bell asked 'so you have feelings, and don't tell me what they are, about Michael Jordan that would prevent you from being fair or impartial?" The candidate said 'yes.
That candidate was dismissed, and on his way out the door, made a fist pump gesture at the legendary sportsman and they shared a laugh. This elicited laughter from the entire courtroom and Judge Bell said he appreciated the honesty.
Another prospective juror had a similar exchange with Judge Bell and said ‘I like Mike,’ to get dismissed from serving.
Another candidate was dismissed because he couldn't hear the judge, and Judge Bell tersely said the man should consider taking care of his hearing aid.
One prospective juror joked on his questionnaire last week that his hobby was 'heavy drinking' and needed to defend it as not an impairment to serving. He ended up being one of the final nine.
To read more Motorsport.com articles visit our website.
AdvertisementAdvertisement