Denny Hamlin opened the first day of the long-anticipated NASCAR antitrust trial with emotional testimony that set the tone for what could become one of the most consequential legal battles in the sport’s history.
The three-time Daytona 500 champion—who, alongside Michael Jordan, co-owns 23XI Racing—told jurors that NASCAR’s business model leaves teams fighting simply to stay afloat.
Hamlin said owners are trapped in a system where generating tens of millions in sponsorship dollars is a prerequisite just to break even.
Even 23XI, buoyed by Jordan’s global star power and commercial reach, had to raise roughly $45 million in sponsor funding to produce a modest profit.
“We’re essentially just professional fundraisers,” Hamlin said, arguing that team costs aren’t meaningfully covered despite the show they help produce.
The veteran driver struggled through tears early in his testimony as he recounted his start in racing and the financial strain his working-class parents endured to keep him on track.
His testimony will continue Tuesday, but his appearance as the trial’s first witness underscored the gravity of what’s at stake.
At issue is a lawsuit brought by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports accusing NASCAR and CEO Jim France of using monopoly power to suppress competition in top-level stock-car racing.
Federal Judge Kenneth D. Bell has suggested that, depending on what the jury decides, dramatic remedies could be on the table, including potentially forcing NASCAR to sell its racetracks.
In opening arguments, attorney Jeffrey Kessler laid out the teams’ central claim: that NASCAR has tied up the industry’s essential components—the racetracks, the rules, and who is allowed to participate—in a way that leaves teams with no leverage. He likened their situation to a nurse who has only one hospital to work for, forced to take whatever pay is offered.
Kessler also pointed to longtime owner Bob Jenkins of Front Row Motorsports, noting he hasn’t seen a profit in two decades, even as the France family reportedly collected nearly $400 million over a recent three-year span.
NASCAR countered with a sharply different narrative.
Attorney John E. Stephenson argued that the lawsuit is nothing more than fallout from failed charter negotiations and not a genuine antitrust issue.
He framed the France family as entrepreneurs whose decades of risk-taking built NASCAR into an American success story—one that shouldn’t be penalized in court.
Stephenson emphasized the sport’s financial contributions to teams, citing $640 million in annual combined sponsorship revenue and $431 million in media-rights and charter payouts.
“If the system is so bad,” he asked, “why do smart businessmen keep buying charters — and asking to make them permanent?”
Jury selection brought its own quirks, particularly with Jordan sitting in the courtroom.
Two prospective jurors admitted they couldn’t remain impartial due to their fandom for the basketball icon; one even gestured a celebratory fist pump toward Jordan as he exited.
Only a handful of candidates knew much about NASCAR itself, and one self-identified Hendrick Motorsports supporter said she disliked Hamlin too much to serve impartially.
The lawsuit, filed in October 2024, followed two years of contentious negotiations over NASCAR’s charter system—the financial and operational backbone of modern team ownership.
While most teams agreed to extend the charter deal last fall, 23XI and Front Row refused, frustrated by NASCAR’s unwillingness to grant permanent charters and seeking greater revenue and governance input.
Charters, once considered risky investments at under $2 million, have surged in value, with the latest transaction reaching $45 million.
Many owners believe they could exceed $100 million if they were guaranteed to exist indefinitely.
Now, the trial will determine whether NASCAR has been operating within the bounds of a competitive marketplace or maintaining control of the sport in a way that violates federal law.
The ruling could either validate NASCAR’s long-standing business model or force sweeping changes that redefine the balance of power between teams and the sanctioning body.
One thing is certain: what happens in this Charlotte courtroom over the next two weeks will shape the future of the Cup Series for years to come.
Discussion about this post