NASCAR criticizes judge's decision regarding Michael Jordan's 23XI Racing

Following the court's decision to grant preliminary injunctions to 23XI Racing, owned by Michael Jordan and Denny Hamlin, and Front Row Motorsports, NASCAR has filed a brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to overturn the ruling.

In its appeal, NASCAR argues that 23XI and Front Row willingly sought and obtained injunctions that bind them to the 2024 charter agreement, despite claiming that the agreement violates antitrust laws.

NASCAR asserts that U.S. District Judge Kenneth D. Bell misinterpreted antitrust laws and downplayed the significance of the release of claims, portraying it as a normal business practice rather than anti-competitive behavior. The organization also argues that, according to case law, businesses have the right to negotiate the terms and conditions of their agreements, and it is up to the teams to accept or reject those terms.

Also see this picks: New York Knicks vs. Detroit Pistons Pick & Prediction MAY 1st 2025 Also see this picks: Los Angeles Kings vs. Edmonton Oilers Pick & Prediction MAY 1st 2025

In its appeal, NASCAR also defends its use of exclusivity agreements with racetracks and limited non-compete clauses, emphasizing their role in controlling costs and ensuring consistency in race operations and media rights.

NASCAR presents 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports as examples of investments made by entrepreneurs like Jordan, highlighting the contrast with antitrust cases involving athletes who are restricted by monopolistic environments.

The organization further explains its competitiveness in attracting capital, fans, and owners, citing high turnover and the need for continuous investment.

Meanwhile, 23XI and Front Row have argued in court filings that NASCAR's business practices are monopolistic and anti-competitive, denying teams a fair opportunity.