Judge smacks down NASCAR's countersuit against teams

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (CN) — A federal judge ended NASCAR’s countersuit against two teams suing it over antitrust violations Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell granted Front Row Motorsports and 23XI Racing’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the racing giant’s opposing antitrust claims.

In their countersuit, NASCAR and owner James France claimed the teams “engaged in active threats and coercive behavior” and ran an “illegal cartel” and that 23XI co-owner Curtis Polk was the ringleader of the group, encouraging all of NASCAR’s charter holders to negotiate jointly to seek terms that benefited the teams more than NASCAR. NASCAR also claimed the teams’ participation in a boycott of a team owners council was an antitrust violation.

All teams that have charters — which grant guaranteed race entry in the Cup Series and a cut of the merchandising and broadcasting revenue — all have identical agreements, despite varying in size, number of racing agreements and resources. Front Row Motorsports and 23XI Racing were the only teams not to sign 2025 agreements; the remaining teams, which signed charter agreements that included a litigation release waiver, were not targeted by NASCAR in its suit.

The joint negotiations were an antitrust violation, NASCAR argued, that harmed the stock car racing market and forced it to cough up a higher percentage of the profits than it wanted to.

But NASCAR has failed to establish that the teams unreasonably restrained trade in the stock car racing market, Bell said Tuesday, which is necessary for its antitrust claims to survive. NASCAR was able to negotiate with teams one-on-one — rather than being forced to negotiate with the collective — and that resulted in the 2025 charter agreements being signed by 13 teams despite the organized teams hoping to achieve better terms under a joint agreement.

NASCAR hasn’t presented any evidence that any of the teams that signed the 2025 charters refused to meaningfully negotiate individually, Bell said.

“NASCAR has failed to sufficiently establish that it suffered the required ‘antitrust injury’ as a result of the allegedly unlawful ‘joint negotiations’ and other conduct,” Bell wrote in his memorandum. Bell also pointed out that NASCAR’s expert economist testified he saw no evidence the teams’ behavior caused NASCAR to increase its cut in the charter payments.

“If the supposed increased payments did not harm competition, they could not cause any antitrust injury to NASCAR,” he said.

NASCAR claimed the teams violated the Sherman Act, a major antitrust law intended to promote fair competition and prevent monopolies. NASCAR needed to prove a conspiracy or contract existed and that it imposed an unreasonable restraint of trade. Counsel for NASCAR, who appeared before Bell last week, struggled to identify how the stock car racing market had been harmed by the teams’ behavior, beyond NASCAR’s reduced profits.

NASCAR’s evidence falls short of establishing an unreasonable restraint of trade or that it suffered antitrust injury, Bell said. NASCAR regularly pursued individual team negotiations and didn’t produce any evidence that any team prioritized the group’s goals over their own and refused to negotiate with NASCAR.

He also disagreed that the group boycott violated the Sherman Act.

“The teams’ one-time decision not to attend a TOC meeting in April 2023 was, to be sure, a negotiating tactic,” he said, but it did not deny NASCAR any supply, facility or market necessary for it to compete, unlike boycotting a racing event would have.

Bell also noted that the joint negotiations could potentially enhance competition between buyers and sellers in a market where NASCAR is the only buyer of services, as NASCAR “has significant power over any single race team.”

“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,” Jeffrey Kessler, counsel for the teams, said in a statement Tuesday. “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.”

NASCAR’s countersuit previously survived a dismissal attempt after the teams argued it was a retaliatory attempt to intimidate them and other teams. In June, Bell said NASCAR satisfied the “(relatively) low bar” of making a plausible claim. The teams repeated their dismissal request again as their case against NASCAR is approaching a December trial.

Bell has yet to rule on two pending summary judgment requests, with the teams asking him to issue a judgment defining the relevant market and whether NASCAR has monopsony power in that market. NASCAR has also asked the court to issue a judgment ruling on whether the teams’ claims exceed the statute of limitations.

Front Row Motorsports and 23XI Racing first filed suit in October 2024, claiming NASCAR has a monopoly on the premium stock car racing industry and is forcing teams to sign anticompetitive contracts. The privately owned association has monopolized racing to reap profits from the sport, while the teams struggle to earn a profit, they said.

The parties, who have been unsuccessful thus far at settling, hope for the December trial to swiftly determine the status of the sport’s charter agreements, as the 2026 Cup Series season will begin in February.

“We respect the court’s decision, though we respectfully disagree with its legal reasoning,” a NASCAR representative said. “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.”

Follow @SKHaulenbeek Follow @shaulenbeek.bsky.social