NASCAR has filed a counter-suit against Front Row Motorsports, 23XI Racing and also named 23XI investor Curtis Polk in that filing on Wednesday morning.
The most important takeaway from the counter-suit, is that NASCAR claims that Polk (the longtime agent for 23XI Racing co-owner Michael Jordan and an investor in their Cup Series team) engaged and directed in behavior that was in itself an illegal violation of federal antitrust laws.
The Sanctioning Body argues that Polk spearheaded a conspiracy to undermine NASCAR business through illegal collective negotiating tactics as the front man for the Team Negotiating Committee that sought to reach an agreement on the charter extension agreement.
NASCAR and 13 of the 15 teams that compete in the Cup Series ultimately reached an agreement but 23XI and Front Row did not accept what it claims was a ‘take it or leave it’ final offer in September and sued the league a month later.
The basis for its counter-suit has been laid out, in part, in the below excepts from the filing on Wednesday morning:
“Beginning no later than June 2022, Counterclaim Defendants engaged in a conspiracy and agreement in unreasonable restraint of interstate trade and commerce, constituting a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Curtis Polk knowingly and actively orchestrated and participated in this illegal conspiracy, while working as a member of the TNC on behalf of the (Race Team Alliance) and aiding 23XI’s and Front Row’s participation in the scheme, also constituting a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.”
NASCAR is arguing that ‘23XI, Front Row, and their co-conspirators are horizontal competitors and separate economic actors who agreed to join together to collectively negotiate with NASCAR’ which would be different than a collective bargaining position held from entities that are equal participants.
The Sanctioning Body says that Polk and the two teams pressured the other teams to participate in a boycott of a qualifying race, presumably the 2024 Duel at Daytona based on the timeline, ‘agreed to a scheme to pressure NASCAR to accept their collusive terms’ and interfered with negotiations with broadcast partners over contract extensions.
NASCAR also claims that the teams and Polk engaged in ‘active threats and coercive behavior in order to maintain their per se illegal cartel.’ The counter-suit claims that such ‘collusive conduct achieved its goals’ and that horizontal competitors jointly negotiating is a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
This is the second time that NASCAR has called someone involved in the suit ‘a cartel,’ making the reference to RTA executive director Jonathan Marshall in court in January as he sat in a proceeding over the preliminary injunction decision that ultimately granted both teams charter status this season.
Even though the teams did not sign the charter extension, federal district judge Kenneth D. Bell sought to maintain the status quo from before suit was filed through a trial that is set for December 1.
That injunction decision has been appealed by NASCAR to the fourth circuit court in Richmond, Virginia.
This counter-suit has been rolled into the ongoing 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports v NASCAR lawsuit, which alleges anti-competitive behavior from the Sanctioning Body against the teams, and thus will be included in the current existing timeline.
Simplify this
Basically, NASCAR continues to dismiss the notion that it acted in a monopolistic fashion and instead is accusing 23XI Racing, Front Row Motorsports and Curtis Polk of violating federal antitrust law.
NASCAR says it is not possible for it to have acted as a monopoly or a monopsony because the enterprise value of teams has increased over the duration of the charter period and the percentage of broadcast rights revenue has increased to them too.
Their stance is that the teams, not NASCAR, asked for this system and that it has generated value for the participants but with little value to the Sanctioning Body.
This was detailed on a conference call on Wednesday morning by Christopher Yates, the lead attorney representing the Sanctioning Body.
“Teams have received materially increased revenue under the 2025 charter and teams are continuing to buy, including ironically 23XI and Front Row, charters at ever increasing prices,” Yates said. “They recognize that the charters provide ever increasing value and significant value to teams or they wouldn’t otherwise continue to buy into the system and spend money on charters.”
NASCAR is claiming that the two teams, including Polk in a directorial role, acted in a violation of federal antitrust laws by attempting to consolidate the efforts of all the teams together, threatened a boycott of a qualifying race, actually boycotted a charter extension negotiation meeting with the Sanctioning Body, and worked to undermine the broadcast rights agreement negotiations in 2023.
The argument is that Polk directed all of these initiatives in the effort to receive better charter terms for the 2025-to-2013 charter agreement.
“What they did, ladies and gentlemen, was illegal,” Yates said. “23XI and Front Row Media are horizontal competitors. They couldn’t agree between between themselves what to pay their employees so it is illegal for them to reach an agreement on what compensation they should receive from NASCAR, and to join together to boycott NASCAR.”
NASCAR also maintains, as it has all autumn and winter, that 23XI and Front Row are attempting to use the legal system to secure the charter terms it was unable to successfully negotiate over two-plus years of back and forths.
The Sanctioning Body says the lawsuit ‘endangers’ the very existence of the charter system.
“Let me be very clear,” Yates said. “NASCAR is happy to proceed with the charter system and work with any and all teams interested in collaborating and growing the sport. But by seeking a declaration that the charter system is illegal and violates federal antitrust laws, 23XI and Front Row are claiming the charter agreements are illegal agreements/
“This opens Pandora’s Box and throws into question whether or not the system can continue.”
It’s worth noting that the teams challenged the legality of exclusivity provisions that prevent teams from racing in any similar entities to NASCAR and a clause that prevented teams from suing the Sanctioning Body.
Yates called those a common inclusion in sports legal documents.
NASCAR says it would move to end the charter agreement if its indeed illegal. The Sanctioning Body is arguing that it has been compelled to defend a model it never asked for in the first place. It would be more than content having a model similar to what it always had and still exists in the Xfinity Series and Craftsman Truck Series.
But ultimately, this counter-suit is about NASCAR challenging the legal position of Polk, a person it has genuine contempt for.
NASCAR is asking for, should it win, a judgement that states that Polk and the two teams acted in violation of federal antitrust law, that the court awards NASCAR its costs and attorney fees and ‘such further relief as the Court deems’ appropriate.
Also, Yates said to not expect a settlement. The court is mandating that the two sides engage in mediation talks over the summer. Yates says NASCAR will comply with that order but that it will not accept 23XI and Front Row using that time to renegotiate charter terms.
“This is not going to be a renegotiation of the 2025 charter,” Yates said. “That’s not going to happen. We’re not going to let 23XI and Front Row misuse the antitrust laws to try to renegotiate the terms of the charter. That’s not going to happen.
“I don’t see a great path to settlement but obviously, we will participate in the court ordered mediation process.”
Charter negotiation timeline
What the charter system is
Why it’s a doomsday scenario if a deal is not reached
Teams hired top antitrust lawyer against NASCAR
Jeff Gordon on why the business model needs to change
Michael Jordan says NASCAR will die without charter permanence
Denny Hamlin says teams just want break even revenue
NASCAR’s June offer to teams ‘was worst yet’
Denny Hamlin on why charters need to be permanent
Smaller teams unified with larger teams
NASCAR, teams making progress on charter deal but hurdles remain
Steve Phelps speaks to Kevin Harvick in wide ranging interview
How drivers feel about the state of the negotiations
Hamlin says negotiations will continue until NASCAR is reasonable
23XI, Front Row refuse to sign NASCAR’s final offer
Denny Hamlin defers to 23XI statement
Brad Keselowski said time was right for a deal
Lawsuit timeline
23XI Racing, Front Row decline to sign NASCAR’s final 2025-2031 charter document
Why 23XI, Front Row filed a lawsuit against NASCAR
23XI, Front Row makes his case in antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR
Richard Childress says he had ‘no choice’ but to sign charter document
How drivers feel about the lawsuit
Michael Jordan comments on his team’s lawsuit against NASCAR
Meet NASCAR’s antitrust defense lawyer
NASCAR files injunction to be included in charter system through lawsuit
NASCAR motions against team’s preliminary injunction request
NASCAR, teams consent to redacting charter details in filings
Teams make case for injunctive relief, expedited discovery
NASCAR’s lengthy rebuttal to injunction, lawsuit
Teams respond to NASCAR response over injunction
23XI, Front Row and NASCAR go to court over injunctions
Judge rules against teams preliminary injunction request
Denny Hamlin says 23XI may not race next year
What preliminary injunction denial means for lawsuit
NASCAR drops ‘lawsuit release clause’ in open agreement
Appeal timeline rebuttal filed by NASCAR
Why 23XI may not have to race in the Clash without charters
Teams drop appeal, may re-file in district court
23XI, Front Row re-file injunction request
NASCAR opposes expedited timeline
France, NASCAR motion to dismiss, deny SHR charter transfer request
NASCAR says injunctive request still fails to show irreparable harm
Teams say NASCAR went back on its word over SHR charters
23XI, Front Row respond to NASCAR’s motion to dismiss
Judge orders NASCAR to issue charters to 23XI, Front Row
NASCAR plans to appeal injunction ruling; other details
Judge grants partial stay of injunction in blunt response to NASCAR
Teams accuse NASCAR of petulance in response to delay request
Why Judge Bell did not delay his injunction order
NASCAR wants 23XI, FRM to post bond covering 2025 charter pay
Both sides meet in court to argue motion to dismiss, bond payment
Judge rules against NASCAR’s motion to dismiss, trial on schedule
NASCAR files counterclaim
Matt Weaver is a Motorsports Insider for Sportsnaut. Follow him on Twitter.