NASCAR News: It's Tit-for-Tat in the NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit

NASCAR has filed a motion to amend its counterclaim against 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports based on information found during discovery.

In its motion, NASCAR says that after the deadline for filing its counterclaim, the teams “produced more than 200,000 pages of emails, texts, and memoranda. Those documents indisputably confirm what NASCAR alleged in its counterclaim: 23XI, Front Row, and Curtis Polk knowingly entered into illegal agreements with other teams on issues such as fixing the compensation that they received from NASCAR and allocating how that compensation would be divided among the co-conspirator teams.”

It was carried out, as NASCAR alleges from the paper trail, by using Jonathan Marshall of the Race Team Alliance (RTA) as a conduit.

NASCAR wants to amend its counterclaim to include the documents. The counterclaim was filed on March 5 and alleges conspiracy and Sherman Act violations.

NASCAR attorney Christopher Yates doubled down, telling The Associated Press that Polk “doesn’t understand the sport” and attempted NBA-style tactics that are “not appropriate in NASCAR.”

But 23XI and Front Row dismissed the motion as “an act of desperation.” In a March filing, their attorneys argued joint negotiations aren’t illegal.

“Any claim of harm to NASCAR from the joint negotiations is negated by the undisputed fact that NASCAR was able to choose the alternative of individual negotiations,” 23XI countered, addressing the allegations of collusion.

From the filing:

“In the NBA, there is a labor union representing players which allows players (and also the NBA teams acting through the league) to negotiate collectively because of the non-statutory labor exemption from the antitrust laws.

“There is no such union in NASCAR, which means that there is no non-statutory labor exemption and teams are fully subject to the antitrust laws if they reach agreements between each other.”

It has said in its countersuit that Polk attempted to orchestrate an illegal boycott of the 2023 Daytona 500 qualifying races while also tampering with NASCAR television partner negotiations.

NASCAR cited, again with redactions, conversations from emails or a 2022 RTA meeting minutes sheet examples of how it believes the teams illegally tried to secure a stronger revenue rights agreement in its negotiations.

After the redacted section, NASCAR’s filing continues:

“Mr. Polk and the TNC then engaged in efforts to discourage other teams from engaging in individual negotiations with NASCAR; in other words, Mr. Polk was engaged in efforts to maintain the conspiracy and proposed a unified effort to attempt to extract even more from NASCAR.”

March 27, 2025

The two teams suing NASCAR over antitrust allegations said Wednesday in a filing that a countersuit against 23XI Racing, Front Row Motorsports and Michael Jordan’s manager Curtis Polk is “an act of desperation” and asked that it be dismissed.

Wednesday’s filing claims that NASCAR’s counterclaim is “retaliatory” and “does not allege the facts necessary to state a claim.”

March 15, 2025

FRM and 23XI filed their response to NASCAR’s appeal of the December injunction ruling that requires NASCAR to allow FRM and 23XI to race as chartered teams in 2025 with each having three charters that includes one each of them purchased in the offseason from Stewart-Haas Racing.

A hearing on the appeal is set for May 9 in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond. A decision would likely come weeks later. A trial in the case is set for Dec. 1, so the hope is that any disputes won’t extend into 2026.

The teams argue that they deserve the injunction because they likely will win the case — that the Cup Series requires elite teams — and 2025 charter agreement doesn’t provide them the economic model to be elite.

“The charters provide the teams with much less revenue and less favorable terms than would prevail in a market unrestrained by NASCAR’s unlawful monopsony,” the teams’ brief states. FOX Sports

March 5, 2025

NASCAR on Wednesday filed a counterclaim against Michael Jordan-owned 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports for “willfully” violating antitrust laws by orchestrating anticompetitive collective conduct in connection with the most recent charter agreements.

23XI and Front Row were the only two teams out of 15 that refused to sign the new agreements, which were presented to the teams last September in a take-it-or-leave-it offer a mere 48 hours before the start of NASCAR’s playoffs.

In the counterclaim filed Wednesday — which names Curtis Polk, Jordan’s longtime agent, as a defendant — NASCAR said “the undisputed reality is that it is 23XI and FRM, led by 23XI’s owner and sports agent Curtis Polk, that willfully violated the antitrust laws by orchestrating anticompetitive collective conduct in connection with the terms of the 2025 Charter Agreements.”

Michael Jordan and Business Manager Curtis Polk (R)

“This is not the first time that 23XI and FRM have sought to impose their viewpoints, and those of their counsel, on the racing teams writ large,” NASCAR continued. “And it is truly ironic that in trying to blow-up the Charter system, 23XI and FRM have sought to weaponize the antitrust laws to achieve their goals.”

Jeffrey Kessler, the attorney for the teams, issued the following statement:

“Today’s counterclaim by NASCAR is a meritless distraction and a desperate attempt to shift attention away from its own unlawful, monopolistic actions.

NASCAR agreed to the joint negotiations that they now attack. When those joint negotiations failed, they used individual negotiations to impose their charter terms, which most of the teams decided they had no choice but to accept.

My clients’ lawsuit has always been about transforming NASCAR into a more competitive and fair sport for the benefit of drivers, fans, sponsors and teams because of their love of the sport. Every major sport goes through a transition to competition when
antitrust claims are asserted, and that moment has come for NASCAR.

Today’s baseless filing changes nothing. We are confident in the strength of our case and look forward to presenting it at trial.”