Front Row Motorsports launched a high-profile antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR, alleging coercive tactics in the latest charter agreement that took effect during the 2024 playoffs, creating immense tension among racing’s key stakeholders in Charlotte, N.C. The Front Row Motorsports charter lawsuit, joined by 23XI Motorsports, centers on claims that NASCAR’s tightly controlled offer left teams with little choice but to sign under pressure and deadlines entering the new racing season.
Testimony Highlights Deep Discontent Among Team Owners
Bob Jenkins, owner of Front Row Motorsports, expressed his frustration in federal court, stating he was “honestly very hurt” by the abrupt delivery and unyielding terms of the 112-page contract provided just hours before a crucial deadline. He explained that while he was out to dinner with his parents and unreachable due to a lack of phone signal, the charter offer was circulated, leaving him blindsided when he finally regained contact and discovered numerous urgent missed messages from his peers regarding the agreement.
Jenkins’ account describes how the agreement was sent to teams at 6 p.m. Friday with a midnight deadline for signatures, which he characterized as strategically timed to minimize the ability of teams to consult with legal counsel. He believed this deliberate scheduling, when
“no attorney on the East Coast was available to read a 112-page document,”
heightened the pressure for immediate compliance and forced decisions in haste.
Upon reaching out to other owners, Jenkins found a shared sense of dissatisfaction. He recounted,
“There was a lot of passion, a lot of emotion, especially from Joe Gibbs, he felt like he had to sign it,”
— Bob Jenkins, Front Row Motorsports owner. Jenkins further emphasized,
“Joe Gibbs felt like he let me down by signing. Not a single owner said, ‘I was happy to sign it.’ Not a single one.”
— Bob Jenkins, Front Row Motorsports owner.
He explained that NASCAR was aware teams faced immense obligations, stating,
“NASCAR knew we had to blindly sign it. Some of these owners have $500-$600 million facilities, long-term sponsors. They couldn’t walk away from that.”
— Bob Jenkins, Front Row Motorsports owner. Jenkins asked for an extension to review the document and received a limited grace period; however, NASCAR Commissioner Steve Phelps informed him,
“negotiations are concluded. We are not re-opening the document.”
— Steve Phelps, NASCAR Commissioner.
Jenkins, looking to the next generation, testified about consulting with his sons about the future of the team and the charter offer, expressing concern that NASCAR expected him to yield since
“13 of 15 organizations had signed.”
Nonetheless, supported by his family and other dissenting owners, he decided not to sign, joining Michael Jordan and Denny Hamlin—owners of 23XI Motorsports—in pursuing legal action.
Reflecting on the evolution of the charter system since its inception in 2016, Jenkins said that although he wasn’t entirely satisfied with the original arrangement, he had hoped it would support the long-term health of the sport. Now, he considers the 2025 agreement a major regression, sharing,
“It was insulting, it went so far backward. NASCAR wanted to run the governance with an iron fist, it was like taxation without representation,”
— Bob Jenkins, Front Row Motorsports owner. He bluntly stated,
“NASCAR has the right to do whatever it wants.”
— Bob Jenkins, Front Row Motorsports owner.
The lawsuit, supported by other notable figures such as Basketball Hall of Famer Michael Jordan and three-time Daytona 500 champion Denny Hamlin, seeks to challenge what the plaintiffs view as NASCAR’s monopolistic grip on the sport and a revenue structure that hamstrings teams financially.
Antitrust Allegations and the Charter’s Controversial Terms
The landmark trial, unfolding in federal court, has drawn national attention as Front Row and 23XI accuse NASCAR of violating antitrust laws through the enforcement of a charter agreement that particularly benefits the France family-owned entity. The teams allege that NASCAR’s “no-win revenue model” and the threat of losing their guaranteed race entries left them with no real bargaining power or viable alternatives.
The disputed charter agreement concluded over two years of contentious negotiations, during which neither side significantly changed their position. Thirteen out of 15 teams eventually signed the deal, fearing the loss of their charters—which secure entry into each race and a set portion of prize money—despite their unmet demands. However, Jenkins and Hamlin argued that complying with the agreement was unsustainable, with Jenkins confirming he had run the team at a loss since its beginning, despite on-track achievements like a Daytona 500 victory in 2021.
On the financial side, while the annual guaranteed revenue per chartered car increased from $9 million to $12.5 million, both Jenkins and Hamlin testified this is still far short of covering the $20 million required to operate a car in all 38 races—a sum excluding critical expenses such as overhead, operations, or driver salaries. Jenkins addressed perceptions of mismanagement by stating,
“It’s offensive to say I’ve overspent. We have a model that works for us,”
— Bob Jenkins, Front Row Motorsports owner. He added,
“I have never turned a profit. And it’s not from malpractice. The level we compete at is just so expensive.”
— Bob Jenkins, Front Row Motorsports owner.
This financial strain led both Jenkins and Hamlin to highlight the intense reliance on external sponsors and the ongoing difficulty making teams profitable under the charter’s terms, echoing concerns noted by many owners.
NASCAR’s Perspective and Executive Testimony
NASCAR’s response, as presented in court, centers around claims that the organization has not violated antitrust laws nor unfairly stifled competition. Executives argue the charter system—implemented after a report by Scott Prime, then a consultant with McKinsey in 2014—was created to address fears about the long-term viability of the sport and racing teams. Prime, now a senior NASCAR executive, explained the charter arrangement was inspired by “taxi medallion” models intended to stabilize team participation.
Despite these intentions, Jeffrey Kessler, representing 23XI and Front Row, pressed Prime on the monopoly accusations, with Kessler asserting,
“There’s no place else to compete. There was no place else for them to go, correct?”
— Jeffrey Kessler, attorney for 23XI and Front Row. Prime affirmed,
“NASCAR is the premier stock car racing series today, yes,”
— Scott Prime, NASCAR executive.
Prime described NASCAR’s concern about the possible emergence of a rival stock car series during the contentious 2024 negotiations, explaining that NASCAR considered proposals ranging from assigning charters on a “first come, first served” basis to absorbing team operations themselves. Kessler summarized the power imbalance:
“Only a monopolist has the power to say, ‘Take my offer and if you don’t take it, you will no longer be in this business, and someone else will take your place,’”
— Jeffrey Kessler, attorney for 23XI and Front Row.
As the trial continues, the broader issue of whether the charter structure ultimately restricts or supports competition remains fiercely debated between the parties.
Financial Stakes and the Scale of the Dispute
The financial aspects at play are immense. Kessler detailed to the jury that nearly $400 million had been distributed to the France Family Trust over three years, with a 2023 Goldman Sachs assessment valuing NASCAR at $5 billion. During 2024, the series reportedly earned in excess of $100 million.
NASCAR defends its position by pointing out that, at the launch of the charter program in 2016, teams received their charters at no charge, a move that has since fostered $1.5 billion in equity for chartered organizations. The organization suggests that the current agreement provides guaranteed income and strengthens team stability, even if not all teams feel the revenue is sufficient to cover escalating costs.
Prime provided historical context, recalling that in 2014, prior to charters, teams collectively lost $85 million annually—or about $1.3 million per car. He explained that in those days, the risk of failing to qualify for a race could cost teams $700,000 apiece. Today, the guaranteed revenue is higher, yet team leaders like Jenkins remain adamant that the funding still lags far behind the true cost of competition-based operations.
Courtroom Drama and High Emotions Behind Closed Doors
Tensions have also flared in the courtroom itself. Judge Kenneth Bell reprimanded NASCAR’s attorneys after a day of testimony for referencing texts and Jenkins’ off-track income, both of which the court had previously prohibited from being discussed. With witnesses such as Michael Jordan and Denny Hamlin in attendance, the case’s high profile has drawn attention from across the motorsports and business communities.
Throughout the proceedings, Jenkins has been clear that his ultimate motivation stems from love for the sport and a desire to see NASCAR thrive for its stakeholders—owners, drivers, and fans alike.
“This is not about bashing the France family,”
— Bob Jenkins, Front Row Motorsports owner, he conceded, crediting the family with positive contributions, while also critiquing,
“They’ve made a lot of great decisions. This charter is not one of them.”
— Bob Jenkins, Front Row Motorsports owner.
Jenkins emphasized the shared views among team owners:
“100% of the owners think the charter system is good,”
— Bob Jenkins, Front Row Motorsports owner, distinguishing between endorsement of the broad charter system and criticism of the current agreement’s deficiencies.
Future Implications for NASCAR and Professional Racing
The results of the Front Row Motorsports charter lawsuit could reshape the economic and governance structure of stock car racing in America. With the trial set to span two weeks and closely watched by media, team owners, and sponsors, the court’s ruling may influence whether NASCAR’s current leadership approach—and charter system—remain intact or are forced to evolve.
If the plaintiffs prevail, changes to how teams and the series negotiate revenue and governance could follow, impacting owners such as Michael Jordan, Joe Gibbs, Denny Hamlin, and others invested in the sport. As financial pressures mount and the need for a viable competitive model grows, the outcome will not only affect existing stakeholders but may also set industry precedents for other major sports organizations grappling with antitrust and equity concerns.
