What to know about NASCAR antitrust lawsuit: NASCAR files appeal
2025-02-13
Category: sports

In hopes of trying to increase the revenues and influence of NASCAR Cup Series teams, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports filed a lawsuit against NASCAR and Chairman Jim France. The teams filed the lawsuit Oct. 2 in federal court in Charlotte, claiming NASCAR's actions violate antitrust laws. This story will be updated with the latest developments and analysis in the case. Information comes from documents filed in the case and through conversations with those knowledgeable on antitrust issues and NASCAR racing. What is the latest happeninsg in the suit? Feb. 12 update:&nbsp; NASCAR filed its appeal brief to the injunction that allows 23XI and Front Row to operate as charter teams while suing NASCAR for antitrust violations. NASCAR’s main argument is that the teams won't likely succeed on the merits of the case in that they have other racing options if they don’t like the terms of the NASCAR charter agreement – that NASCAR Cup Series racing can't be the defined "market" when it comes to antitrust issues. The sanctioning body also reiterates that 13 of the 15 organizations signed the charter agreement that runs from 2025-31 (with a possible extension), an agreement that includes teams now getting approximately 50 percent of the media revenues, an increase from about 37 percent from the previous deal – which shows that they do have an economically viable business model. NASCAR also was critical of U.S. District court judge Kenneth Bell's ruling that the clause in the charter agreement that releases NASCAR from legal claims violates antitrust law. "These injunctions misuse the judicial power to force NASCAR to treat its litigation adversaries as its business partners and confidants, undermining the mutual trust that has fueled NASCAR’s growth and success," NASCAR says in its brief. "Worse, the district court conjured from thin air a categorical ban on sports leagues including releases broad enough to encompass antitrust claims in their agreements – eliminating the need to prove anticompetitive conduct, a crucial element."&nbsp; The teams' response is due March 14. NASCAR's reply is due April 12. A likely hearing on the appeal will be May 9 or May 15 in the U.S. Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit (Richmond, Va.) with a decision likely by the end of June. Jan. 10 update: NASCAR's motion to dismiss the case was denied by U.S. District Court judge Kenneth Bell. The judge also declined to require the teams to post a bond for any earnings they receive this year that could be paid back if they lose the case. Bell's ruling was not a surprise, coming just two days after the hearing where he indicated he would expect the case to proceed. He wrote that whether NASCAR has violated antitrust law is not clear at this point in the lawsuit. He has set a Dec. 1 date for a jury trial. "The answers must be found when the parties have a full opportunity to pursue discovery of the relevant facts and then at trial, where the jury will be able to weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of the witnesses," the judge wrote in his opinion. The next major step in the case will come in the U.S. Court of Appeals, where NASCAR is appealing injunctions that require NASCAR to allow 23XI and Front Row to compete in 2025 with three chartered cars apiece. Both teams were initially offered two charters apiece (they didn't sign those agreements because of a clause in the agreements that released NASCAR of legal claims) and each has purchased a charter from Stewart-Haas Racing. The injunction requires NASCAR to approve the transfers of those charters. Jan. 8 update: A hearing was conducted in U.S. District Court on NASCAR’s motion to dismiss the case. Judge Kenneth Bell heard arguments from both sides but did not rule. He also heard arguments on whether the teams should have to post a bond to cover any charter payouts they receive this year but possibly would have to return if they lose the case. According to the Associated Press, Bell promised a fast ruling but indicated he was unlikely to dismiss the suit when he closed the 90-minute hearing by saying "this case is going to be tried this year, and deserves to be tried this year."&nbsp; For NASCAR to prevail in having the case dismissed, it must show that even when taking the facts that the teams present are true, that no laws have been broken and the case should be thrown out. For that to happen at this stage is considered unlikely, considering Judge Bell’s previous rulings. NASCAR argues that&nbsp;defining the market as Cup racing is too narrow for antitrust claims, that its actions show it is not anticompetitive as it has increased in the percent of television revenues given to the team as part of the 2025 charter agreement (signed by 13 of 15 Cup organizations) and that 23XI and FRM have already invested in the system so they can’t invest and then claim antitrust violations. Bell has issued an injunction (technically two injunctions) requiring NASCAR to allow 23XI and FRM to race as charter organizations in 2025 using three charters apiece. Both 23XI and FRM were two-car organizations in 2024 and purchased a charter from Stewart Haas-Racing, and the injunction requires NASCAR to approve the transfers of those charters. 23XI technically had to request a separate injunction, and NASCAR agreed to it without giving up the defense on appeal in order to speed up the appeals process. NASCAR is currently appealing the injunctions in the U.S. Court of Appeals but no timetable has been set for a hearing and/or when a decision would come. NASCAR’s preseason exhibition Clash event is scheduled for Feb. 2 and the season-opening Daytona 500 is set for Feb. 16. Dec. 23, 2024 update NASCAR must approve the transfer of one Stewart-Haas Racing charter to Front Row Motorsports, but as part of procedure, 23XI Racing must ask the court specifically for its charter purchase from SHR to be approved by NASCAR, a U.S. District Court judge ruled Monday. Judge Kenneth Bell issued an injunction last week that NASCAR must allow, while the lawsuit continues, for 23XI and Front Row to have their two existing cars continue as chartered teams in 2025 and that NASCAR approve the transfers of the SHR charters to those teams (which would be a third car for each). NASCAR filed an emergency motion in district court to halt the teams from closing on those purchases until an appeal can be heard on the injunction ruling. The teams had indicated they planned on closing on the sales last week, and Judge Bell ruled Dec. 20 that if they had not closed yet, to wait until he ruled Dec. 23. The judge issued his opinion and opted to tweak the injunction, ruling that because 23XI had not asked for its charter transfer to be approved as part of its initial injunction request (23XI had not gotten a formal denial at that time), he would remove that from the injunction order he issued last week – but the judge will allow 23XI to ask for the court-ordered approval in a separate motion. The judge also ruled he would not delay enforcement of the SHR charter to FRM because that was clearly asked for as part of the injunction request. NASCAR argued that approving the SHR transfers would commit it to guaranteeing a charter to 23XI and FRM for seven-to-14 years (the length of the charter agreement that goes into effect in 2025). The judge stated that if the teams don’t prevail in the case, he can order them to sell or lease the charters to someone else.&nbsp; The teams argued that NASCAR had indicated it would approve the transfers but then reversed course once the teams filed the lawsuit, an example of its anticompetitive conduct. They also argued that SHR, recently rebranded into Haas Factory Team with plans to field one Cup car, did not have the personnel nor ability to filed two additional cars. It is expected that 23XI will file for a preliminary injunction with respect to the charter it wants from SHR, and it is expected that NASCAR will appeal the ruling that denied its ability to delay approval of an SHR charter transfer to Front Row until the appeal is heard. Dec. 18, 2024 update In a big victory for 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, their request for a preliminary injunction was granted. Judge Kenneth Bell's ruling requires NASCAR to allow 23XI and FRM to sign the charter agreements they were offered in early September (NASCAR had said those offers were off the table) and approve the transfer of a charter each team plans to purchase from Stewart-Haas Racing. The injunction is only good for 2025 as the judge plans to have a trial completed before the start of the 2026 season.&nbsp; The teams didn't initially sign the charter agreement because they wanted to pursue the antitrust lawsuit, but the charters included a clause releasing NASCAR of legal claims. So they pursued the injunction, which was initially denied by Judge Frank Whitney in mid-November with the caveat he would reconsider it if circumstances changed. The teams submitted new circumstances, and Judge Bell – who was assigned the case last week (no reason for the change was given) – ruled in the teams' favor. NASCAR can appeal the ruling. To obtain the injunction, the teams needed to prevail on four factors: --Likelihood of success: The judge ruled that the clause in the charter agreement that released NASCAR of legal claims would likely be considered unlawful, that the "release is not a model of clarity (inscrutable would be a fairer description)." The judge noted that "the Court emphasizes that it does not reach and expresses no opinion as to Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on their other [antitrust claims]." The judge did opine that NASCAR's claim that premier stock-car racing is too narrow of a definition of a market when it comes to antitrust claims was not persuasive: "The availability of multiple sports in the United States says nothing about NASCAR’s control of a major one of them in the same way that the availability of professional basketball and football did not lead to a finding that the NCAA was not a monopolist with respect to the highest levels of college basketball and football." --Irreparable harm: The judge ruled that because drivers notified their teams of potential breach of contract and sponsors said they are reviewing their financial commitments was enough to show irreparable harm. Tyler Reddick, who won the regular season title for 23XI, would have become a free agent Dec. 19 because the team is required to provide him a chartered car. The judge ruled that the ability (whether it would happen or not) for Reddick to negotiate and potentially leave was enough – and his leaving is not something that could be compensated by financial damages if the teams ultimately won the lawsuit. --Balancing of equities: The judge ruled that NASCAR would not be harmed by the injunction as it initially had plans for 36 charters and a corresponding payout structure while the teams would have possibly missed races as an open team. --Public interest: The judge ruled that the public interest is for the teams to continue racing as chartered teams. "NASCAR fans (and members of the public who may become fans) have an interest in watching all the teams compete with their best drivers and most competitive teams," the judge wrote. "Further, the public has an interest in preserving the rights of litigants to pursue legal claims in good faith, particularly antitrust claims that aim to preserve the process of commercial competition." NASCAR did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling. Dec 12, 2024 update In a flurry of filings in the last four days, NASCAR and the teams argued their sides on the renewed motion for preliminary injunction. And they now are making them before a different judge. On late Wednesday afternoon, the court reassigned the case to Judge Kenneth Bell. There was no reason given on why Judge Frank Whitney, who issued the initial preliminary junction ruling, is no longer handling the case. Whitney had ruled a month earlier that the teams had to show more than speculative irreparable harm to get an injunction and for them to re-file if circumstances changed. Irreparable harm is harm that without the injunction, even if the teams eventually win the case, the damage they suffer cannot be adequately addressed monetarily. 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports claim circumstances have changed and indicated there are deadlines next week as far as the purchases of a charter each plan to buy from Stewart-Haas Racing. They are asking to be allowed to sign the charter agreements, and for NASCAR to approve the transfer of the SHR charters, without giving up the right to pursue the antitrust lawsuit. They say they couldn't sign the charter agreements by the deadline because there is a clause in the charter agreement that can be interpreted that they are giving up the right to sue. As proof of new circumstances that would result in irreparable harm, Front Row Motorsports general manager Jerry Freeze, in court documents, claims the charter transfer from SHR was approved by NASCAR in September but after they recently filed the official paperwork, NASCAR said the team would have to drop the antitrust lawsuit to have the transfer approved.&nbsp; The teams argued they could lose drivers and sponsors and potentially miss races if they must race as an open team. Much of the evidence they cite — emails from drivers and sponsors — have been redacted from public court documents. NASCAR, in its filing Dec. 9, reiterated many of its previous arguments from the first hearing as well as its recent motion to dismiss. NASCAR argues that no 23XI nor FRM driver says he will leave the teams if they are not chartered and even if a driver would leave, the teams were the ones who put in contracts that drivers could leave if they didn’t have a chartered car. NASCAR also alleged that there appeared to be a coordinated effort by the teams to have the drivers send emails, an allegation denied by 23XI President Steve Lauletta in court filings. NASCAR reiterated its plan to have 32 chartered teams, which would give them eight open spots for each race. NASCAR argues that both 23XI and FRM, which plan to field three cars apiece, most likely would not miss a race with eight open spots available (instead of four). As far as the SHR charters, NASCAR indicated FRM will argue that the release of legal claims clause is unenforceable so it plans on signing that transfer paperwork. As far as whether any parts of the charter agreement are enforceable, NASCAR claimed that the charter agreement terms require those issues to be decided through arbitration rather than decided through the courts. The teams have another filing due Monday, Dec. 16, where they will respond to NASCAR’s recent motion to dismiss. No hearing dates have been set by Judge Bell.&nbsp; Dec. 2, 2024 update NASCAR filed its motion to dismiss and general answer to the lawsuit. A motion to dismiss, at this stage of litigation, argues that even if the facts presented by the teams are true, that no laws were broken and therefore the case must be thrown out. NASCAR argues that the teams just didn't get what they wanted in the 2025 charter agreement, and that is not an antitrust issue – and even if it is, that most of the conduct that the teams allege violates antitrust law occurred beyond the statute of limitations of four years. It argues that the teams can’t already have invested and competed in NASCAR and then claim NASCAR operations are anticompetitive. And they say the 2025 charter agreement – signed by 13 of 15 organizations but not by 23XI and FRM – show they don’t operate in the monopolistic fashion claimed by the teams as NASCAR increased the percentage of television revenues awarded to the teams. &nbsp;"Plaintiffs concede the Charters are "worth millions of dollars" and NASCAR increased the revenues available to teams. ... If NASCAR truly had market power, it would be decreasing its demand for Plaintiffs’ services and lowering the amount by which it compensates them," NASCAR argues. NASCAR indicated in its filings it would not approve transfers for Stewart-Haas Racing charters (23XI and FRM each plan on purchasing one) without the teams accepting the clause in the charter agreements that release NASCAR of antitrust claims. The teams have asked for an injunction to force NASCAR to allow 23XI and FRM to sign the charter agreements (they each would have three with the purchase of an additional one from SHR) but continue the antitrust litigation. No hearing date has been set for the judge to consider that injunction motion nor the motion to dismiss.&nbsp; Nov. 26, 2024 update The 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports teams filed a renewed motion for preliminary injunction, citing new circumstances that they claim show they face more than just a risk of irreparable harm, which the judge told them they must show if they want the motion reconsidered. The new circumstances cited are redacted from the court filing, where the teams ask to be allowed to sign the charter agreement while not having to abide by the clause that releases NASCAR from antitrust violations. The teams claim that sponsors are making decisions for 2025 and they indicate sponsors want assurances the teams will race as charter teams. Each of the teams have agreements to purchase a charter each from Stewart-Haas Racing and they indicate they must decide to close within three weeks. They ask the judge, even if the request to be charter teams is not granted, that he allow them to purchase the SHR charters without giving up their rights to sue. NASCAR is expected to respond to the lawsuit by Dec. 9. A hearing has not yet been scheduled. Nov. 20, 2024 update: 23XI and Front Row Motorsports have dropped their appeal to the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction. They want the courts to force NASCAR to allow them to sign the charter agreement without giving up their right to sue on antitrust grounds, which is prohibited by one of the clauses in the charter agreement. U.S. District Court judge Frank Whitney denied that request Nov. 8, stating that the teams couldn't prove irreparable harm, they only showed they might suffer harm if they can't race as chartered teams. In his ruling, he stated that if the facts change and they could show more of a likelihood of irreparable harm, the teams could refile the preliminary injunction motion. The teams had appealed the decision but dropped the appeal Nov. 20, stating: "Circumstances have changed in the underlying case, removing the need for this appeal and necessitating Appellants to seek new relief from the district court."&nbsp; While it is not specific and there could be other extenuating circumstances that have occurred, the wording in that statement indicates the possible refiling of the preliminary injunction in district court. There was no immediate comment from the teams beyond what was stated in the filing. Nov. 16, 2024 update: After receiving 2025 open team agreement paperwork, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports can race as an open team while pursuing the lawsuit. According to the teams, the current paperwork doesn't include the clause in the open agreement that releases NASCAR of certain legal claims. The clause remains in the 2025 charter team agreement, and the teams will continue to appeal the denial of their request for a preliminary injunction for the clause to be waived to allow them to sign the charter agreement (which NASCAR says is now off the table). The ruling on the preliminary injunction denial included both the charter and open agreements. This means that 23XI and Front Row will at least field teams as open cars. Under previous open agreement provisions, the teams would have had to sign the open agreement and risk that the legal claims release clause would be considered valid, which would dismiss the case in favor of NASCAR. Denny Hamlin said a week ago after the denial of the preliminary injunction that their entire 2025 plans were to be determined. Now 23XI and FRM, as stated in previous court documents, will plan to proceed as three-car teams in 2025, even if they are open cars (meaning they aren’t guaranteed a spot in every race and receive significantly less revenue for racing). The teams have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals to expedite the timeline to rule on the denial of the preliminary injunction. They have asked that all briefs be filed in the next few weeks and for a hearing during the court’s Dec. 10-13 session for oral arguments. The teams argue that waiting until the court’s Jan. 28-31 session is too close to the start of the season, and a normal briefing schedule would put it on the calendar for the March 18-21 session. The appeals court can also rule without a hearing, although the teams are requesting one. NASCAR, which opposes the accelerated timeline, has until Nov. 18 to respond to the teams’ request. Nov. 8, 2024 update: Preliminary injunction denied. Because the charter and open agreements contain a release clause waiving the ability to sue NASCAR, the 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports organizations had sought an injunction to allow them to sign the agreement (preferably a charter agreement) while pursuing the lawsuit. To be granted a preliminary injunction, one must prove irreparable harm without the injunction. The teams argued that drivers and sponsors could be allowed to leave and if they compete only as an open team, which earns significantly less money than a chartered team and is not guaranteed a spot in the field each week, that they eventually might have to shut down. U.S. District Court Judge Frank Whtney determined that those harms were speculative impacts, not definitive ones that would require an injunction. "Plaintiffs have alleged that they will face a risk of irreparable harm, they have not sufficiently alleged present, immediate, urgent irreparable harm, but rather only speculative, possible harm," the judge wrote. "That is, although Plaintiffs allege they are on the brink of irreparable harm, the 2025 racing season is months away — the stock cars remain in the garage." The judge ruled that should facts change, the teams could file the preliminary injunction motion again. The teams can appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The ruling came out during NASCAR's annual "state of the sport" address and news conference at the season-finale weekend in Phoenix. NASCAR President Steve Phelps said he had no comment. What happens next? The teams could sign the open agreement (NASCAR currently says the charter agreement is off the table for those organizations) but then would have to argue that the clause releasing NASCAR of claims is not enforceable.&nbsp; 23XI and FRM will appeal the decision. Attorney Jeffrey Kessler said he was pleased the judge decided to fast track discovery and other deadlines as part of his decision but obviously they wanted more. "Although we are disappointed that the preliminary injunction&nbsp;was denied without prejudice and&nbsp;as premature, which we intend to appeal, this denial has no bearing on the merits of our case," Kessler said in a statement. "My clients will move forward to race in 2025 and continue to fight for a more fair and equitable system in NASCAR that complies with antitrust law." November 4, 2024 update: Attorneys for both sides sparred during the 70-minute preliminary injunction hearing. The judge said he hoped to rule by Friday, Nov. 8. Jeffrey Kessler argued that 23XI Racing driver Tyler Reddick, who is in the hunt for the Cup championship, and the team's sponsors could leave if they are not allowed to run as a charter team while pursuing the lawsuit.&nbsp; Even if they are an open team, they need an injunction, Kessler said, because the open agreement teams must sign releases NASCAR of antitrust claims. Although they have signed the agreements in the past, which NASCAR argued implies their consent, Kessler argued that the injunction focuses on the stipulation in a contract they have not signed (the 2025 charter and/or open agreements).  NASCAR attorney Chris Yates said 23XI has sophisticated ownership with Michael Jordan as a co-owner and by competing in NASCAR, the teams can't enjoy the benefits of being a charter team — which he said includes about 50 percent of NASCAR's television revenues going to Cup teams — while making antitrust claims. And if the teams prevail, Yates said monetary damages can be calculated, so therefore an injunction is not needed. "They make bold announcements that ignore the evidence," Yates told the court, later adding "The real problem is plaintiffs claim that they are saying something is anticompetitive for something they joined." Yates noted that "they could invest in NASCAR, they could invest in IndyCar, they could buy an NBA team." The last part, obviously, was a reference to Jordan's former ownership of the Charlotte NBA team. Kessler argued that the teams have put all their resources into stock cars and the injunction merely maintains the status quo while the litigation proceeds. "They have no place else to practice their profession — you can't go to a football player and say you can be a basketball player," Kessler told the court. Any decision is likely to be appealed, Kessler said following the hearing. Outside the courtroom, Michael Jordan commented on being in court six days before Reddick competes for the Cup title. "I've been in situations of disparity — the race team is going to focus on what they have to do this weekend, which I expect them to," Jordan said. "I think Jeffrey did an unbelievable job today. "I put all my cards on the table. I think we did a good job of that. But I'm looking forward to winning a championship this weekend." October 31, 2024 update:&nbsp; The judge has denied an expedited discovery request from 23XI and FRM for NASCAR to produce documents prior to the Nov. 4 preliminary injunction hearing.&nbsp; "While the proposed discovery requests may help Plaintiffs show a likelihood of success on the merits, they are not sufficiently narrowly tailored and … Plaintiffs argue the record is sufficient to support their motion for preliminary injunction as it stands," the judge wrote in his ruling. October 30, 2024 update:&nbsp; In their reply to NASCAR's response to their injunction request, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports reiterated many of their previous arguments but with a couple of new points they hope can help them land the preliminary injunction: --The teams argue that if they race as open teams, they still have to sign the NASCAR open team agreement, which includes the same clause that would release NASCAR of any claims the teams make in the lawsuit. So to even proceed fielding open, non-chartered cars, the teams would need an injunction to pursue the lawsuit. --The teams also argue that NASCAR would not be harmed by the injunction because NASCAR already had planned, up until mid-September, to have 36 chartered teams, and therefore by allowing them to compete as chartered teams and pursuing the lawsuit, it is merely continuing the status quo. October 23, 2024 update: Both NASCAR and the teams had filings due Oct. 23 as part of the preliminary injunction process where 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports are asked to compete as chartered teams while pursuing the lawsuit (they cite a clause in the charter agreement that would prohibit them from suing). A hearing on the preliminary injunction motion is scheduled for Nov. 4. NASCAR filed its response to 23XI/Front Row's preliminary injunction motion, and obviously NASCAR doesn't want to give them that benefit to run as a chartered team, considering 13 of the 15 Cup organizations have signed charter agreements. NASCAR says it plans to run in 2025 with 32 chartered teams (instead of 36 this year) and eight open cars (instead of four) in its 40-car field — 23XI and Front Row currently have two charters apiece that they have yet to sign for. NASCAR argues that the teams don't meet the requirements for an injunction because they can still compete as open teams and that any damages that they suffer if they prevail in the case can be covered monetarily. NASCAR also argues that 23XI and FRM won't win the case because NASCAR Cup racing is not the market when it comes to antitrust law, that there are other racing and entertainment options. They argue the exclusivity provisions the teams cite as violating antitrust laws are common across sports and pro-competitive because they make the product more appealing to broadcasters, fans and sponsors when compared to other entertainment options. The teams, who have until Oct. 30 to reply to NASCAR's filing from Oct. 23, filed a reply to NASCAR's response to the teams' request for expedited discovery. The teams primarily argue that documents they want prior to the preliminary injunction hearing Nov. 4 will not be difficult for NASCAR to gather/produce and courts regularly grant expedited discovery to provide a more fulsome record for a preliminary injunction motion. The judge is expected to rule on this in the coming days.&nbsp; Previous updates: 23XI and Front Row filed a motion Oct. 9 for a preliminary injunction to allow them to race in 2025 as chartered teams — they have refused to sign the charter agreement, which was signed Sept. 6 by the 13 other Cup organizations — while the lawsuit proceeds. To get a preliminary injunction, 23XI and Front Row primarily must show a likelihood of success on the merits of the case and irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued. They also must show that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest. The teams claim that the guaranteed spot in every race (which a charter team gets) is critical to their business. The Daytona 500 alone is worth about 15% of the entire season's purse, according to the teams' court filings, and "there is a risk that irreplaceable sponsors and drivers could abandon [the teams] if they have to compete as open teams and do not qualify for all their races." Front Row owner Bob Jenkins in court filings stated: "Because of our love for the sport and our determination to maintain the race team we have built, we are determined to race next year even if we have to do so on an ‘open' basis, but at some point, the losses may become so severe that we simply cannot continue — causing irreparable harm to our business, our employees, and the communities and fans we are associated with." NASCAR indicated in an Oct. 9 court filing on the scheduling for the hearing on the injunction request, why it opposes the motion. NASCAR says the case is more a contract case and not an antitrust case and the teams' motion doesn't meet the criteria for a preliminary injunction. NASCAR argues that an injunction is not a necessary measure because if it ultimately loses the case, the court could determine monetary damages that would compensate the teams. On Oct. 16, NASCAR filed its response to the teams' request for expedited production of documents and files. In that filing, NASCAR states that it is "planning a 2025 season with 32 instead of 36 Charters. NASCAR carries contractual obligations to the 13 teams that accepted its offers of 2025 Charters, and consistent with the terms of the 2025 Charters, NASCAR is working on reallocating funds that Plaintiffs would have received to increase prize money and other special awards for the 2025 season for the benefit of teams that timely executed 2025 Charters, as well as Open teams who can compete to win the increased prize money and other special awards." What is next? NASCAR must file a response to that preliminary injunction motion by Oct. 23. The judge initially scheduled the hearing for Oct. 16 but NASCAR, with its offices in Daytona Beach, asked for it to be postponed because their offices were shut down for at least a couple of days because of Hurricane Milton. The hearing was moved to Nov. 4 with each side getting 30 minutes. The judge wouldn't necessarily have to rule on the day of the hearing but typically would in the days following. As far as the teams' request that NASCAR produce documents in the next few weeks, the teams must reply to NASCAR's response by Oct. 23. The judge would then rule on that motion between then and the Nov. 4 hearing.  Who are the parties of the suit? The 23XI Racing team is owned by driver Denny Hamlin (who drives for Joe Gibbs Racing), basketball icon Michael Jordan and Jordan business associate Curtis Polk. They field cars for Bubba Wallace and Tyler Reddick, and plan to add a third car next year regardless of the lawsuit status. The Front Row Motorsports team is owned by restaurant franchisee Bob Jenkins. It fields cars for Michael McDowell (who will be replaced by Noah Gragson next year) and Todd Gilliland. It plans to add a third car next year regardless of the lawsuit status. NASCAR is owned by the France family, primarily Jim France and France's niece, Lesa France Kennedy. Jim's father, Bill France Sr., founded NASCAR in 1948.&nbsp; What are the basics of the suit? The teams say that a premier stock-car racing series must have premier stock-car racing teams to have a premier stock-car racing product. They argue that because NASCAR owns the series and the majority of the tracks while also requiring the teams to purchase parts and pieces for their cars from a NASCAR-approved supplier, as well as prohibiting teams and tracks from participating in other racing (primarily stock-car racing) series without NASCAR's approval, that they violate antitrust law by controlling the market where premier stock-car racing teams can compete. They view the new 2025 charter agreement as unfair when it comes to revenue distribution to the teams in combination with the restrictions. What is the charter agreement? The 2025 charter agreement is designed to be an extension of the charter system that was formed in 2016 as NASCAR attempted to address the team business model by defining the guaranteed revenues teams would get and guaranteeing a spot in every Cup race. It in many ways acts as a franchise but differs from other sports leagues in that the teams do not have ownership in the league itself. The teams and NASCAR had been negotiating a new agreement for a couple of years to replace the one that expires at the end of the 2024 season. On the late afternoon/early evening of Sept. 6, the teams were sent a final NASCAR proposed agreement and given until midnight to sign it. What are the teams asking for? The lawsuit isn't too specific about what the teams are asking for. They are asking for any relief necessary to restore competition and unspecified monetary damages. What does Michael Jordan say? The basketball icon told FOX Sports on Oct. 6 prior to the Talladega race: "I did it for the smaller teams as well. It's not just me. I think everybody should have an opportunity to be successful in any business. My voice is saying that it hasn't been happening. ... Hopefully we [at both sides] can come to our senses and figure out something that can make sense for everybody."  What does NASCAR say? Jim France and NASCAR President Steve Phelps, when approached by FOX Sports during the Talladega race weekend on Oct. 6, declined comment on the lawsuit. The sanctioning body has yet to issue a statement other than what is in public court filings. In a Sept. 18 letter to 23XI Racing, an exhibit in the court filings, Phelps wrote: "It appears after 2+ years of negotiations with Teams, both collectively and individually, compromise and concession on both sides up until the last minute, we firmly believe that we have come up with a document that is fair and equitable to the industry. ... You suggest that NASCAR somehow has ‘monopoly power' and that 23XI and other Teams ‘depend on [NASCAR] for a competitive opportunity' and have been presented with a ‘take-it-or-leave-it offer.' We feel — and our attorneys have confirmed — that this contention is misplaced — and similar types of claims have already been rejected by courts." In its Oct. 16 filing, NASCAR sums up the suit by stating: "Plaintiffs have filed a meritless suit against NASCAR alleging baseless antitrust claims in order to obtain commercial agreements they previously rejected, and to attempt to extort more favorable contract terms." What do other team owners say?&nbsp; RCR owner Richard Childress: "I didn't have a choice. We had to sign. I have over 400 employees, OEM [manufacturer] contracts, contracts with sponsors. I've got to take care of my team." Trackhouse owner Justin Marks: "It's a wait-and-see game. It's going to take a long time to take to get to any sort of point where we know what the future looks like. ... For us, we just have to focus on Trackhouse. Ultimately, we got to a place where I was comfortable signing the contract. We did a great job the last couple of years building a viable business under the current arrangement and the new one will continue that in our standpoint." RFK Racing owner (and driver) Brad Keselowski: "We're always going to be fighting over a piece of the pie. ... I just want peace. I want our entire industry to become laser-focused on growing the sport and creating incentives where we all win when that happens." What do drivers say? Kyle Larson (Hendrick Motorsports):&nbsp;"We're probably one of the only sports, if not the only sport, that athlete salary has gone down in the last couple of decades. Where you look at, clearly, most athletes' salaries are going up — not just athletes but coaches, staff members, everybody. Obviously we would love to see it trend upward instead of the opposite, which it's been, but I think with that, the teams probably have to make a lot more money to make it viable to pay the people that are working for the organizations." Joey Logano (Team Penske):&nbsp;"Does it affect me? I'm sure someway, somehow, someday, it probably will. But at the moment, there's nothing I can do either way. So I'm just kind of letting it roll and see how the cards fall and see what happens." Michael McDowell (Front Row): "Bob Jenkins is so dedicated to this sport.&nbsp;... He has spent millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of his own dollars to be in this sport and to be competitive.&nbsp;Nobody does that unless they're insane or super passionate.&nbsp;Bob is very passionate."  Who are the lawyers? The teams' main attorney is Jeffrey Kessler, who is known for representing NCAA athletes in their quest to earn money from their name, image and likeness. He also has represented U.S. women's national team players in their quest for equal pay. He also represented Tom Brady during "Deflategate."&nbsp; NASCAR is represented by Chris Yates, a noted attorney who has represented the U.S. Soccer Federation, the UFC, World Aquatics, Fanatics, the Atlantic Coast Conference and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Who is the judge? The judge was Frank Whitney, who was appointed to the bench in 2006. He is a former Army reservist, a military intelligence officer, and spent 15 years as a federal prosecutor in North Carolina. On Dec. 11, the case was reassigned to Judge Kenneth Bell. He is a former federal prosecutor who also served in private practice from 2003 until his appointment by President Trump in 2019. He is a 1983 graduate of Wake Forest University's law school. How long could this take? This case could settle at any time. But it could take two years or more if it went to trial. And then any appeal could take a year or more. And if there are decisions that could merit an appeal before the case continues toward trial, it could take even longer. Will the teams win?&nbsp; There is no question NASCAR controls many aspects of the sport. It has faced antitrust actions twice over the last 25 years, but those complaints came from racetracks that wanted Cup races (NASCAR prevailed in one, settled the other). The key for the teams is to get past what most likely will be a motion to dismiss (where NASCAR would ask the judge to rule that it didn't violate the law even if everything the race teams allege is true) before discovery occurs. If NASCAR fails to persuade the judge to throw out the case, the teams would get to look at NASCAR's books and emails, which would then give them the opportunity to find any egregious acts that discourage competition. It is possible that alone would push NASCAR to settle. Will NASCAR win? NASCAR leadership could argue that they gave teams a charter agreement to help them and were under no obligation to do so — and that there could be more competition if there was no charter agreement whatsoever because no one would be guaranteed a spot in the field. They could argue that they don't stifle competition because there are other stock-car series, albeit on a smaller scale (such as the CARS tour), or other racing series that teams could compete in. And they could argue against the premise that they are legally required to have premier racing teams competing in their events.&nbsp; And what would be the potential outcomes? That is the biggest question. The teams appear to want their preferred terms of the charter deal — they would like to see permanent charters, more of a say in the governance of the sport and more control of their intellectual property than what is in the 2025 charter agreement. But there could be other/different changes that address the antitrust issues. Could NASCAR be required to sell the tracks, and if so, who would buy them, and how would that address the teams' issues? &nbsp;Could NASCAR change clauses in the charter agreement that don't necessarily deal with revenue awarded to the teams but which satisfy the legal issues and would then force the teams to potentially see if another major stock-car series could be developed? That is what gives this case the potential to have a major impact on the future of the sport. Bob Pockrass covers NASCAR for FOX Sports. He has spent decades covering motorsports, including over 30 Daytona 500s, with stints at ESPN, Sporting News, NASCAR Scene magazine and The (Daytona Beach) News-Journal. Follow him on Twitter @bobpockrass.