NASCAR's Latest Bold Retaliation In 23XI Racing And FRM Lawsuit Revealed

9 hours ago 3

NASCAR's ongoing legal battle with 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports has taken another turn, with NASCAR filing to push for a bond to be issued.

This bond is meant as a safeguard for any financial payouts NASCAR might have to make if the teams win the lawsuit.

NASCAR argues that the bond is crucial to protect its financial interests, particularly if it prevails in future legal proceedings or appeals, while the plaintiffs argue otherwise.

23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports claim the bond is not only unnecessary but also assert that NASCAR benefits from their participation through marketing and exposure.

This lawsuit was originally filed on October 2, 2024, against NASCAR and its CEO, Jim France. The central issue is the charter system NASCAR introduced in 2016, with updates made in 2025.

23XI Racing, co-owned by NBA legend Michael Jordan and NASCAR driver Denny Hamlin, and Front Row Motorsports, owned by Bob Jenkins, have criticized these agreements as being unfair, alleging that they create barriers that limit competition.

They also argue that the charter agreements primarily benefit NASCAR and its executives. Both teams have aligned their legal efforts, bringing in Winston & Strawn LLP as their legal representatives, led by Jeffrey Kessler.

The importance of the charter system for NASCAR teams cannot be overstated. It guarantees participation in all NASCAR events and provides a share of revenue.

When Judge Kenneth D. Bell granted a preliminary injunction in December 2024, it was a huge victory for the teams. This injunction allowed them to maintain their charter status for the 2025 season, despite initial resistance from NASCAR.

Moreover, it permitted the teams to purchase additional charters, an action NASCAR had previously blocked.

From NASCAR's perspective, the bond they seek is a financial safeguard. NASCAR attorneys in their filing said:

"Plaintiffs' opposition is a far cry from the allegations in their Complaint that the Charter Agreements are 'one-sided,' 'onerous' and offered to Charter teams on a 'take-it-or-leave-it basis.'

"Now, Plaintiffs concede that the Charters are arm's-length commercial contracts whereby NASCAR provides substantial benefits to Charter teams. ... That has ramifications with respect to NASCAR's request that the court impose the bond that Rule 65(c) requires and, also, for the merits of the case.

"The Court's injunction imposes a de facto contract for the 2025 season; a bond is necessary to allow NASCAR to recover benefits provided to Plaintiffs through that forced agreement in the event NASCAR succeeds on appeal or ultimately on the merits."