In response to the preliminary injunctions granted to 23XI Racing, owned by Michael Jordan and Denny Hamlin, and Front Row Motorsports, Nascar filed a brief on Friday urging the US court of appeals for the fourth circuit to reverse the decision.
In the appeal, Nascar contends 23XI and Front Row sought and received injunctions binding them to the 2024 charter agreement despite contending the charter violates antitrust law.
Nascar asserted that US district judge Kenneth D Bell misapplied antitrust laws and portrayed the release of claims as standard business practice, not anti-competitive conduct. Nascar argued businesses, per case law, have a right to choose the terms and conditions of their agreements and it is the teams' choice to accept or decline the terms.
Per the appeal, Nascar went on to defend exclusivity agreements with racetracks and limited non-compete clauses, emphasising their importance in cost control and consistency for race operations and media rights.
Nascar presented 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports as investments by entrepreneurs such as Jordan, contrasting them with antitrust cases involving athletes restricted by monopolistic environments.
In the appeal, Nascar explained its competitiveness in attracting capital, fans and owners, citing high turnover and the need for continual investment.
Meanwhile, 23XI and Front Row in court filings have maintained Nascar's business practices are monopolistic and anticompetitive and deny teams a fair shake.
Nascar slams judge’s ruling for Michael Jordan’s 23XI Racing
Image: Meg Oliphant/Getty Images
In response to the preliminary injunctions granted to 23XI Racing, owned by Michael Jordan and Denny Hamlin, and Front Row Motorsports, Nascar filed a brief on Friday urging the US court of appeals for the fourth circuit to reverse the decision.
In the appeal, Nascar contends 23XI and Front Row sought and received injunctions binding them to the 2024 charter agreement despite contending the charter violates antitrust law.
Nascar asserted that US district judge Kenneth D Bell misapplied antitrust laws and portrayed the release of claims as standard business practice, not anti-competitive conduct. Nascar argued businesses, per case law, have a right to choose the terms and conditions of their agreements and it is the teams' choice to accept or decline the terms.
Per the appeal, Nascar went on to defend exclusivity agreements with racetracks and limited non-compete clauses, emphasising their importance in cost control and consistency for race operations and media rights.
Nascar presented 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports as investments by entrepreneurs such as Jordan, contrasting them with antitrust cases involving athletes restricted by monopolistic environments.
In the appeal, Nascar explained its competitiveness in attracting capital, fans and owners, citing high turnover and the need for continual investment.
Meanwhile, 23XI and Front Row in court filings have maintained Nascar's business practices are monopolistic and anticompetitive and deny teams a fair shake.
READ MORE:
Denny Hamlin triumphs at Darlington for second straight win
Nascar names Steve Phelps as its first commissioner
Denny Hamlin races to victory at Cook Out 400 for first win of 2025
Nascar sues Jordan's 23XI, Front Row; calls teams 'illegal cartel'
Michael Jordan’s team: Nascar ‘blaming victims’ in antitrust squabble
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Most read
Latest Videos