NASCAR’s allegation that it paid too much to the Teams in the 2025 Charters is not itself an injury to competition; rather, it is only a private economic loss to NASCAR.
This is a key line, in a document full of them, in which Judge Kenneth D. Bell dismissed NASCAR’s summary judgement counterclaims against 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports in the ongoing antitrust dispute between the two parties.
The Western District of North Carolina judge, in a filed written order, says that the very idea of competition itself was not harmed by the teams collectively negotiating with the Sanctioning Body. In fact, the judge says competition was aided by the fact that NASCAR could and did reach deals with 13 of 15 teams that compete in the Cup Series as a result of individual meetings.
NASCAR alleged antitrust violations against 23XI and Front Row, including 23XI investor Curtis Polk, over what it argued was an illegal ‘cartel’ ‘conspiracy’ to have ‘horizontal competitors’ jointly negotiate when there is no legal avenue for them to do so.
Regardless of any of this, Judge Bell writes that there is no evidence of antitrust injury to competition, and that NASCAR’s own experts could not provide any evidence to where joint negotiations even resulted in an increase to teams in charter revenue terms.
In fact, during a hearing last week on the matter, NASCAR could not produce this evidence when asked by the judge and said it would provide it after the hearing. In legalese, NASCAR did not establish a genuine issue of material fact on the matter.
Beyond even the lack of injury to competition, Judge Bell asked NASCAR for evidence that the Sanctioning Body was even harmed, and could not.
“Simply put, if the supposed increased payments did not harm competition, they could not cause any antitrust injury to NASCAR.”
Much of the order written by Judge Bell is just a rehash of the charter extension negotiating timeline, detailing how NASCAR was able to negotiate both individually and with the larger groups, in the form of the Race Team Alliance and Team Negotiating Committee.
From Judge Bell’s order:
“Both the TNC and individual negotiations contributed to the final language of the 2025 Charters. While NASCAR has suggested in argument that the individual negotiations were ‘meaningless,’ that assertion is not supported in the record. To the contrary, NASCAR described at oral argument how one particular team had requested a provision that became part of the 2025 Charters (for all teams).
“And most significantly, all but two of the teams individually agreed to the terms of the 2025 Charters, even though the terms fell well short of the TNC ‘joint’ negotiating position.”
And, that once those 13 charter agreements were signed, they were all identical to each other.
Judge Bell writes that for NASCAR to prove an antitrust violation, it must show antitrust injury, and it has not in regards to the charter extension negotiations.
“NASCAR’s evidence fails to establish either an unreasonable restraint of trade or that it suffered antitrust injury.”
A frequently cited precedence, of which both sides have used to frame their arguments is the 1979 Broadcast Music Inc. v CBS, Inc antitrust decision reached by the Supreme Court.
Judge Bell cited in ruling that NASCAR was able to negotiate with both individuals and collective parties. He writes:
“In other words, if a buyer has a ‘realistically available’ choice to deal with the sellers either collectively or individually, then the joint activity of the sellers does not effectively restrain trade because the buyer has a choice of how to pursue its purchase. Again, the goal of the antitrust law is to protect competition and the competitive process.
“Where, as here and in the cases cited above, there are pro-competitive reasons to support collective activity. In its earlier Order, the Court explained that the ‘NASCAR Cup Series is in all respects a collective, not an individual sport,’ requiring common rules for a fair competition. Indeed, NASCAR sought to and did reach the same agreement with all the Teams in both the 2016 and 2025 Charters, including the same percentage of media revenue, intellectual property rights and rules related to tires and other elements of racing – all of which would be difficult if not impossible to negotiate differently for each team.
“And still, as discussed at length above, NASCAR had a choice. It could and did negotiate individually with the Teams, ultimately concluding agreements with the vast majority of the Teams, notwithstanding the significant differences between the joint negotiating offers and the final terms of the 2025 Charters.”
Again, Bell says NASCAR has not shown injury to competition.
NASCAR has also alleged a conspiracy from Polk to orchestrate a ‘boycott’ of the 2023 Duel at Daytona. That never materialized. However, the team owners did boycott a meeting with NASCAR in April 2023.
The judge found that such a boycott was simply a negotiating tactic that had no impact of the final charter terms anyway.
“The Teams’ one time decision not to attend a TOC meeting in April 2023 was, to be sure, a negotiating tactic (which appeared to have little impact as the record reveals that soon after the meeting NASCAR informed the Teams that it wanted to have meetings with individual teams and did so in May and June 2023).
“As such, NASCAR was not denied any ‘supply, facility, or market’ necessary for it to compete (as would, for example, refusing to participate in a racing event). Therefore, the Teams’ failure to attend the TOC meeting is not subject to per se liability. Rather, the same Rule of Reason / BMI analysis discussed above applies. And again, in the absence of a genuine issues of material fact regarding whether individual negotiations were a realistic alternative to joint negotiations (and they occurred soon after the TOC meeting), there is no proof of an unreasonable restraint of trade.”
The judge says NASCAR ultimately paying the teams more than it wanted to was not an injury to competition but just a byproduct of negotiations that they lost out on.
“Even assuming that the joint negotiations NASCAR challenges caused it economic harm, that does not equate to a harm to competition. Rather, NASCAR getting more or less in contract negotiations is simply that – a hit to its bottom line, not ‘competition.’
“NASCAR’s core claim is that the Teams’ ‘conspiracy’ forced them to pay a higher price for the teams’ services in the 2025 Charter Agreements. However, NASCAR has produced no evidence linking the payment increase under the 2025 Charter Agreement to the joint negotiations as opposed to the individual negotiations that resulted in the agreement of the remaining teams (or other market factors).”
The full order can be downloaded and read in PDF form here.
23XI, Front Row Statement
“We are thankful for Judge Bell’s thoughtful consideration of the facts and the law, and his decision to grant Summary Judgment in my clients’ favor against the NASCAR counterclaim. Today’s decision has only reaffirmed my clients’ unwavering pursuit of a more fair and equitable sport. Their determination remains strong as we continue our efforts for a resolution that benefits everyone – teams, drivers, employees, partners and fans.”
-Lead attorney Jeffrey Kessler
NASCAR statement
“We respect the Court’s decision, though we respectfully disagree with its legal reasoning. Our priority remains resolving this matter quickly so all parties can focus on Championship weekend and continuing to grow the sport. Should a resolution not be reached, we intend to appeal the decision at the appropriate time.”
We want your opinion!
What would you like to see on Motorsport.com?
– The Motorsport.com Team
