CHARLOTTE, N.C. (CN) — NASCAR must allow two teams suing it to compete in the same races as charter teams in the 2025 race season, a federal judge in Charlotte decided Wednesday.
Front Row Motorsports and 23XI Racing — which is partially owned by basketball legend Michael Jordan — have pushed for the court to interfere so they can compete with guaranteed entry into races in the 2025 stock car racing season, which begins in February.
They accused the racing giant in October of violating antitrust laws by requiring participating teams to sign anticompetitive “charter” contracts to race and of having a monopoly on the stock car racing industry.
The court had previously refused to force NASCAR and its owner James France’s hands in November, denying 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports a preliminary injunction and finding that the plaintiffs hadn’t proved that they would suffer the irreparable harm needed for the court to interfere.
In a departure from the court’s prior decision, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell found Wednesday, after a renewed motion for an injunction, that the teams had met their burden, and required NASCAR to allow the teams to enter two race cars in all Cup races without signing an agreement that releases their legal claims against the parties. He also denied NASCAR’s request to strike down the plaintiffs’ injunction request, and prevented NASCAR from refusing to allow the teams to purchase charters to compete under.
The court expects a trial to be concluded before the beginning of the 2026 race season, Bell wrote, and this injunction is intended to allow the teams to compete until the matter is settled.
“The public interest strongly favors entry of a limited preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs during the 2025 NASCAR race season, both to give fans of stock car racing the opportunity to watch (and root for and against) the full slate of teams and to allow plaintiffs’ antitrust legal challenges to be considered,” Bell, a Donald Trump appointee, said.
Despite weeks of legal tug-of-rope, the parties came to an agreement mid-November to allow plaintiffs to participate in the NASCAR Cup Series races as open teams, without being required to sign a release clause that was initially included in the contracts. The clause, which the plaintiffs claim would release NASCAR from their claims, had prevented the teams from signing new charter agreements in September.
Open teams have fewer benefits than chartered teams, which have signed agreements to guarantee them entry into races, and a cut of broadcasting profits. Open teams are able to receive scholarships and prize money, but aren’t entitled to merchandising and broadcasting profits, which the plaintiffs say are necessary to make a profit. They also have to qualify for each race, which makes it difficult for open teams to consistently race.
“The court’s ruling allows 23XI and Front Row Motorsports to race existing cars as chartered teams in next year’s Cup Series. The decision also requires NASCAR to approve both teams’ purchases of a third charter from Stewart-Haas Racing and allow these cars to also race as chartered teams in the 2025 season,” Jeffrey Kessler, attorney for 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports said in a statement to Courthouse News. “We are confident in the strength of our case and will continue to fight so that racing can thrive and become a more competitive and fair sport in ways that benefit teams, drivers, sponsors and, most importantly, our fans.”
Plaintiffs had filed a new motion at the end of November, claiming that their businesses will be severely damaged should they only be allowed to compete as open teams, and that they are facing the loss of their sponsors and drivers without being allowed to compete as charter teams.
Several of their drivers — including Tyler Reddick, Riley Herbst, Noah Gragson, Bubba Wallace and Corey Heim — have warned their prospective teams that a new charter agreement is necessary to keep the companies from breaking their driver contracts.
And the plaintiffs are facing the potential losses of sponsors, with Monster Energy saying it was reconsidering its relationship with 23XI Racing, and Front Row Racing’s largest sponsor, Love’s Travel Stops, raising concerns about the company’s lack of a charter agreement.
Bell, who was only assigned to the case on Dec. 11, agreed that the teams will likely face crippling damages if they aren’t able to compete with guaranteed race entry.
“On the one hand, plaintiffs will likely suffer significant harm if they are consigned to only racing as an “open” team, losing the opportunity to race their most competitive team as well as putting at risk several important sponsorships,” he wrote. “On the other hand, defendants will not be significantly harmed (and perhaps not harmed at all) by plaintiffs being allowed to race as chartered cars on the same terms as other chartered teams.”
Bell found in his order that the teams are likely to succeed on the claims that NASCAR holds a monopoly in the industry, and that the provision barring teams from taking legal action could be a violation of antitrust laws.
“It is the court’s intent — for the 2025 race season — to maintain the status quo of plaintiffs participating in NASCAR Cup Series races as chartered teams while being permitted to pursue their legal claims in this action,” he said.
The teams weren’t able to prove that they were facing imminent losses of their sponsors or drivers when they first requested the court interfere, but they are now, which is why they succeeded in their request, he said.
“Market aspirants should not be forced to choose between participation in a market and the later assertion of their ongoing/future antitrust rights, nor should a monopolist be permitted to include in the market only those who consent to the monopolist’s alleged wrongdoing,” Bell wrote, finding that NASCAR has monopoly and monopsony control of premier stock car racing.
The teams first sued NASCAR and France in October, claiming NASCAR has a monopsony — where a market only has one buyer — over stock car racing and has maintained its monopsony by buying out its closest competitor, requiring racing companies to sign anticompetitive agreements, and by acquiring racing circuits and racetracks, making it difficult for a competitor to break into the industry.
Representatives for NASCAR did not reply to a request for comment.