By Milton Kirby | Charlotte, NC | December 16, 2025
On Dec. 11, 2025, NASCAR, 23XI Racing, and Front Row Motorsports announced a settlement that ended a federal antitrust trial in Charlotte and changed the sport’s business future in a way team owners have chased for years: a form of “evergreen” charter, meaning charters no longer live under the constant threat of expiration on NASCAR’s timeline.
That one phrase, tucked into the joint statement, explains why so many people in the garage called it a generational moment. For nearly a decade, NASCAR’s charter system has worked like a license: valuable, but still dependent on renewal and still shaped by a single power center. Now, the settlement commits NASCAR to issuing an amendment to existing charter holders that includes a form of evergreen charters “subject to mutual agreement,” while keeping the financial terms confidential.
The agreement closed a fight that started long before a jury ever sat down. It began with years of tense negotiations over revenue, governance, and the basic question of whether NASCAR’s top teams were true partners in the sport’s growth—or simply contractors expected to accept whatever terms came from Daytona. When 23XI and Front Row refused to sign what many described as a last-chance charter offer, the dispute moved from boardrooms to federal court. The trial then forced NASCAR to defend its business model in public, under oath, and with internal documents entering the record.
The end result was a settlement that likely moved hundreds of millions of dollars in risk off NASCAR’s balance sheet, while shifting long-term leverage toward teams that have argued for years they were carrying too much cost and too little certainty.
How much money was really at stake
Even though the settlement check is confidential, the trial record put hard numbers in the air.
In sworn testimony, economist Edward Snyder calculated damages of $364.7 million for 23XI and Front Row combined, with $215.8 million attributed to 23XI and $148.9 million to Front Row. He also testified that chartered teams were underpaid by $1.06 billion from 2021 to 2024 based on his model of what a more competitive revenue structure would have produced.
Those figures matter for two reasons.
First, they created a credible worst-case scenario for NASCAR in front of a jury: not just a one-time verdict, but a verdict that could have been trebled under antitrust law if willful conduct was found, plus legal fees, plus the reputational hit of being labeled a monopoly in a high-profile sports trial. The public reporting around the case consistently treated the potential exposure as massive, even if no one can state a precise final “billion-dollar” number without the verdict itself.
Second, they gave team owners a plain-language measure of what they have argued privately for years: the teams’ slice of the sport’s major revenue streams has not matched the costs teams shoulder to compete at the Cup level.
Snyder’s work also gave the jury a comparison point. His analysis contrasted NASCAR’s revenue share to Formula 1, which he said shares roughly 45% with teams compared to NASCAR’s 25% in his estimate, though NASCAR disputed the comparison.
The settlement did not publicly publish a new percentage split. But it did something that can be just as powerful in business: it changed the legal status of the core asset.
The “evergreen” charter as the real prize
If you strip away the headlines and focus on incentives, the evergreen charter is the settlement’s crown jewel.
Charters are the sport’s version of a franchise slot. They are tied to guaranteed entry (for the chartered field) and a share of certain revenue. Before this deal, the charter system still ran on renewal cycles and the reality that NASCAR, as the sanctioning body, held final power over the contract terms.
Under the settlement, NASCAR committed publicly to issuing an amendment that includes evergreen charters. That changes how owners, sponsors, lenders, and potential investors can value a team.
A team that “owns” a long-term, stable charter is different from a team that “rents” participation under a contract that can be rewritten. Evergreen status moves a NASCAR Cup team closer to a modern franchise model, where the slot itself is a durable asset and where the owner can plan in decades, not contract windows.
That is why even teams that never joined the lawsuit still benefit on paper the morning after the settlement: their charters immediately look more secure.
What the trial exposed
The lawsuit was not simply about money. It was also about control: who controls the schedule, who controls the rulebook, who controls the terms of participation, and what happens to a team that refuses to sign.
During the trial, the public learned more about NASCAR’s contingency planning and negotiation posture than it had seen in years. One of the most talked-about examples was the so-called “Project Gold Codes” deck—described in coverage as a contingency plan for operating the sport if teams boycotted or if NASCAR had to take more of the competition in-house.
From a legal standpoint, the existence of a contingency plan is not shocking. Big businesses plan for crises. What made it explosive in this context was how it fit into the teams’ narrative: that NASCAR was prepared to outlast resistance, pressure holdouts, and keep racing under alternative structures.
That is the kind of evidence that can change settlement posture fast, because it can shape how a jury views intent and leverage.
Why NASCAR settled
In its joint statement, NASCAR framed the settlement as “long-term stability” and “meaningful growth,” and emphasized that fans would continue to enjoy uninterrupted access to racing.
But the business reason is simpler: NASCAR settled because trials are unpredictable, and antitrust risk is the kind of risk corporate leaders try to cap early.
The longer the case stayed in open court, the more internal emails, negotiation notes, and executive testimony could become public. Even if NASCAR believed it had a strong defense, it still faced a jury, still faced a judge managing a slow-moving trial, and still faced the possibility that a single bad day of testimony could shift momentum.
A settlement, by contrast, lets NASCAR do three things at once:
- Limit legal exposure without a precedent-setting verdict.
- Protect business relationships tied to media rights, sponsors, and manufacturers.
- Move the sport into 2026 with a new story: unity and stability.
NASCAR even pointed directly to 2026 in the statement, noting the season begins with the Daytona 500 on Feb. 15, 2026.
How all teams may benefit
Even with confidential financial terms, the settlement creates clear, shared benefits for chartered teams:
More valuable charters
Evergreen status increases the durability of the charter asset. When an asset becomes more durable, it becomes easier to finance, easier to insure, and easier to sell. It can also make it easier for teams to bring in outside investment without giving up control.
More stable sponsor pitches
Sponsors want certainty. “We might not have a charter next cycle” is not a strong pitch. “We are a permanent, chartered franchise” is.
A clearer future for succession
Some NASCAR teams are family businesses. Others are now part of larger ownership groups. In both cases, long-term value matters. A system that looks more like a franchise model helps owners plan beyond one contract.
More leverage for the next negotiation
The settlement shows that NASCAR will compromise when the risk becomes real. Owners will remember that the next time they negotiate over costs, rules, and revenue streams.
Why the biggest teams didn’t sue
One of the most important questions our readers will asked is: why didn’t Hendrick Motorsports, Team Penske, Joe Gibbs Racing, RFK Racing, Richard Childress Racing, and other established powers lead the charge?
There are several grounded reasons—none of which require assuming cowardice or disloyalty.
They had more to lose in the short term
Big teams often have the deepest sponsor networks and the most integrated technical pipelines. A long court fight risks disruption: sponsor uncertainty, manufacturer tension, and internal distraction.
They already had influence inside the system
The largest teams often have stronger informal influence—relationships, history, access—than newer teams. That influence can translate into deals, exceptions, or quiet wins that never make headlines.
They may have preferred private pressure
Not every power fight happens in public. Some teams may have believed the better play was to support charter changes behind closed doors while letting 23XI and Front Row take the legal risk.
Newer ownership groups had a different risk profile
23XI is backed by Michael Jordan’s brand power and business confidence, plus Denny Hamlin’s racing credibility. Front Row, led by Bob Jenkins, has years in the sport and a willingness to fight for an economic model that keeps mid-tier teams alive. In a system where many owners felt forced to sign, these two groups were positioned to push back harder.
What the future looks like
The settlement does not solve every tension. NASCAR still controls the rulebook, the officiating, and the schedule. But it does change the conversation from “take it or leave it” to “we need agreement.”
The sport now enters 2026 with a headline race date already set: the Daytona 500 on Feb. 15, 2026. That matters because NASCAR can sell 2026 as a fresh start: new season, new stability, and a newly reinforced charter structure.
It also means the next fights will likely be quieter and more technical—about how “subject to mutual agreement” is defined in practice, what governance mechanisms exist behind the scenes, and how new revenue streams are shared as NASCAR expands internationally and experiments with new event formats.
One more reality is worth naming: the sport’s center of gravity has shifted. NASCAR may still be the sanctioning body, but the teams now have a stronger claim to being stakeholders with equity that cannot be dismissed as temporary.
That is why this settlement will be remembered less for the confidential dollar amount—and more for the one change that can reshape the garage for decades: evergreen charters.
The Tale of the Tape: The Ask vs. The Get
The Ask (Trial Testimony)
- $364.7 million in damages for 23XI and Front Row combined (expert testimony).
- Claim that teams were underpaid $1.06 billion from 2021–2024 (expert testimony).
The Get (Settlement Announcement)
- NASCAR will issue a charter amendment including a form of evergreen charters, subject to mutual agreement.
- Financial terms are confidential.
Related articles
23XI, NASCAR and Front Row Strike Deal to Strengthen Team Equity and Gro
Michael Jordan’s 23XI Racing Scores Major Win in NASCAR Antitrust Fight
History is Made: Bubba Wallace Becomes the First Black NASCAR Driver to Win on the Indianapolis Oval
Support open, independent journalism—your contribution helps us tell the stories that matter most.