Michael Jordan’s 23XI Racing Scores Major Win in NASCAR Antitrust Fight

By Milton Kirby | Charlotte, NC | October 29, 2025

A Legal Showdown in Charlotte

Michael Jordan’s racing team, 23XI Racing, and Front Row Motorsports have not only made headlines on the track but also in federal court. On October 28, 2025, they scored a major victory when U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell dismissed NASCAR’s counterclaim accusing them of operating as a cartel.

The ruling marks a turning point in one of the most significant legal battles in modern motorsports. What began as a disagreement over how NASCAR governs its teams has evolved into a test of how much control a sports sanctioning body should hold over its competitors.

Background: Why the Teams Sued NASCAR

The lawsuit was filed in October 2024 by 23XI Racing — co-owned by Michael Jordan and Denny Hamlin — and Front Row Motorsports, owned by Bob Jenkins. Their claim: NASCAR’s charter system and business practices create an illegal monopoly.

Under that charter system, each Cup Series team holds a “charter” guaranteeing entry in every race and a share of revenue. The teams allege that NASCAR uses the system to limit competition, suppress team values, and maintain full control over television and sponsorship income.

Out of 15 Cup Series organizations, only two — 23XI and Front Row — refused to sign the new 2025 charter agreement after two years of tense negotiations. They called the deal “take-it-or-leave-it,” claiming it stripped teams of long-term equity.

The lawsuit names NASCAR Holdings, Inc. and CEO Jim France as defendants, accusing them of violating federal antitrust laws by dictating terms that block other sanctioning bodies or rival leagues from competing in top-tier stock-car racing.

NASCAR Fights Back — and Loses

In March 2025, NASCAR countersued. Its attorneys claimed that Curtis Polk — Jordan’s longtime business manager and co-owner of 23XI — coordinated with other teams to pressure NASCAR for a better charter deal.

NASCAR’s counterclaim described the teams as an “illegal cartel” that allegedly:

Boycotted meetings of the Team Owners Council,
Tried to interfere with NASCAR’s ongoing media-rights negotiations, and
Refused to negotiate individually.

The sanctioning body argued that this group behavior harmed competition and violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.

But Judge Bell didn’t see it that way. In his October 28 order, he granted summary judgment in favor of the teams, effectively tossing NASCAR’s counterclaim.

He wrote that NASCAR failed to show any “unreasonable restraint of trade” and that the meeting boycott “appeared to have little impact on the competitive landscape.” In other words, while the teams’ joint stance may have frustrated NASCAR, it did not harm competition itself — the key legal test for any antitrust violation.

Even if NASCAR experienced economic loss, the court said, that isn’t the same as harm to the marketplace.

What the Dismissal Means

By removing the “cartel” accusation, Judge Bell has simplified the case heading to trial. The focus now returns to the original question: Does NASCAR’s business model violate antitrust law?

For 23XI and Front Row, this is a big win. It clears away a major distraction and gives their attorneys — led by veteran sports lawyer Jeffrey Kessler — a cleaner path to argue that NASCAR’s charter system is anti-competitive.

“This ruling only reaffirms my clients’ unwavering pursuit of a more fair and equitable sport,” Kessler said after the decision.

NASCAR’s legal team struck a different tone, saying it “respects the court’s decision, though we respectfully disagree with its reasoning,” and indicated it may appeal the dismissal.

The Charter System at the Center of It All

Created in 2016, NASCAR’s charter system was meant to give teams stability — a guarantee that, like franchises in the NFL or NBA, they could count on starting spots and predictable income.

But the plaintiffs argue that NASCAR turned that system into a control mechanism. Charters can be revoked or limited in transferability, giving the sanctioning body final say over who can buy, sell, or race.

Teams say this suppresses their market value and leaves them dependent on NASCAR’s approval for everything from sponsorships to media exposure. Without reforms, they claim, no independent racing team can ever build the long-term wealth enjoyed by teams in other professional sports.

That imbalance is magnified by the way charters are distributed. Under the new 2025 charter agreement, most teams are limited to a maximum of three charters. However, powerhouse organizations like Hendrick Motorsports and Joe Gibbs Racing were grandfathered in and allowed to keep four.

According to Jayski’s NASCAR Silly Season Site and RacingNews.co, this exception allows Hendrick to continue fielding four chartered cars — the No. 5, No. 9, No. 24, and No. 48 entries — while new or expanding teams are capped. That rule not only preserves historical dominance but also illustrates the inequity newer teams like 23XI are fighting to change.

Inside the Courtroom: Key Legal Milestones

The Original Complaint (October 2024) – Filed in Charlotte’s federal court, the complaint alleged that NASCAR controls nearly every aspect of top-tier stock-car racing, from event scheduling to licensing and broadcast rights.
Preliminary Injunction (December 2024) – Judge Bell temporarily allowed 23XI and Front Row to operate under existing charters while litigation continued.
Fourth Circuit Appeal (June 2025) – An appellate panel vacated an earlier injunction, emphasizing the need for a full trial on the merits.
Counterclaim Dismissed (October 2025) – The most recent order, striking down NASCAR’s accusation of cartel behavior.

The case is now scheduled for trial on December 1, 2025, in Charlotte, North Carolina. Both sides have agreed to strict pre-trial conduct rules to keep the proceedings civil — including bans on referencing unrelated controversies like former NASCAR CEO Brian France’s 2018 resignation.

The Bigger Legal Questions

The trial will revolve around several key issues:

Market Definition: Are we talking about “top-tier stock-car racing” (the Cup Series alone) or the entire motorsports industry? The smaller the defined market, the stronger the monopoly claim.
Competition vs. Competitor Harm: Antitrust law protects the market, not individual companies. The teams must prove NASCAR’s structure hurts competition itself — for example, by preventing new entrants or suppressing fair prices.
Revenue and Negotiation Power: Who should control the billions generated by television rights, sponsorships, and licensing? Teams say NASCAR hoards too much of that revenue and dictates how it’s divided.
Statute of Limitations: NASCAR argues that some alleged conduct happened more than four years ago and falls outside the antitrust window.

How the court answers those questions could reshape not only NASCAR’s future but also the economics of all U.S. motorsports.

What’s at Stake

If 23XI and Front Row win, the case could force NASCAR to overhaul its entire charter and revenue model. That might include:

Allowing greater transfer rights for team charters,
Sharing a larger portion of media and sponsorship revenue, and
Giving teams a stronger voice in governance.

For NASCAR, losing could mean ceding some of the control it has exercised since its founding in 1948.

Even a negotiated settlement — which remains possible — might compel NASCAR to rewrite its agreements in ways that permanently rebalance power between teams and the league.

Cultural and Business Impact

Beyond the courtroom, this case carries symbolic weight. Michael Jordan’s entry into NASCAR was already historic: a Black majority owner stepping into a sport long criticized for its lack of diversity.

Now, his team is challenging the structure of the very organization he joined. It’s not just about money — it’s about transparency, fairness, and inclusion in a sport trying to modernize its image.

Business outlets like Sports Business Journal and The Athletic note that Jordan’s leadership brings credibility and global attention to a sport seeking new fans. This lawsuit, though risky, positions him as both a competitor and a reformer.

For many team owners, the outcome will determine whether NASCAR evolves into a franchise-style league with shared prosperity — or remains a top-down entity where teams compete for limited leverage.

The Road Ahead

The December 1 trial will likely stretch into early 2026. Legal experts expect fireworks: expert testimony on sports economics, closed-door contract disclosures, and possibly new revelations about NASCAR’s internal decision-making.

Both sides continue mediation talks, but after this week’s ruling, 23XI and Front Row hold the momentum.

Whatever the verdict, this case is already changing the conversation around how America’s biggest racing league does business.