CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Denny Hamlin, the three-time Daytona 500 winner suing NASCAR along with Michael Jordan as co-owners of the 23XI Racing team, took the stand Monday afternoon as the NASCAR antitrust lawsuit began inside a federal courthouse in Charlotte.
Hamlin told the jury of six men and three women, who were selected earlier Monday, that he and other NASCAR team owners are “essentially just professional fundraisers” due to NASCAR’s business model. (Hamlin also drives for Joe Gibbs Racing.)
23XI Racing, the team co-owned by Hamlin and Jordan, had to generate $45 million in sponsorship revenue just to make a minor profit — but they were the exception, Hamlin testified.
“The difficult part is coming up with tens and tens of millions just to break even,” Hamlin said. “Your costs (as an owner) aren’t covered to put on (NASCAR’s) show.”
Hamlin was the first witness to take the stand in what is expected to be a bitter two-week trial that might decide the future of NASCAR.
23XI and Front Row Motorsports are accusing NASCAR of illegally using its monopoly power to suppress the market in “premier stock car racing,” and Judge Kenneth D. Bell has said he may go to extreme measures to remedy the situation — such as forcing NASCAR to sell all of its racetracks — if the jury agrees with the race teams.
Michael Jordan, co-owner of 23XI Racing, one of two teams suing NASCAR in federal court. (Jeff Robinson / Getty Images)
On the witness stand, Hamlin detailed how his partnership with Jordan — whom he’d met while being a courtside season-ticket holder for the Jordan-owned Charlotte Hornets of the NBA — was vital for his team ownership prospects.
Hamlin said that without Jordan’s ability to pull in major sponsors and close deals, his team would not be profitable.
“If I couldn’t be successful with Michael as a partner, I was never going to make this work,” Hamlin said.
The Cup Series season wins leader cried on the stand near the start of his testimony when asked how he got his start in racing and had trouble getting words out.
“My dad is not in great health,” he explained to the jury before telling it how his working-class parents financed the early part of his racing career until they were nearly broke.
Hamlin’s testimony will continue Tuesday. Before he took the stand, attorneys from both sides gave their opening statements and had very different arguments.
The teams’ attorney, Jeffrey Kessler, laid out why NASCAR and its controlling France family fit the definition of abusing their monopoly power, laying out a roadmap of evidence he claims will show NASCAR tied up the racetracks and the race cars and restricted eligibility of teams to illegally maintain their monopoly.
He compared the teams’ situation to wanting to be a nurse for a career, but having only one hospital to work at — and that hospital setting a below-market salary, with a choice for the nurse of “accept what they pay you or don’t be a nurse.”
Kessler noted Front Row Motorsports owner Bob Jenkins has not made a profit for his race team in the 20 years he’s been competing in NASCAR. Kessler said he plans to show evidence that the France family itself has received almost $400 million in a recent three-year period.
“What the evidence is going to show is France ran (NASCAR) for the benefit of his family at the expense of the teams and sport, and his own executives knew,” Kessler said.
Meanwhile, NASCAR attorney John E. Stephenson said the teams were suing as a result of failed negotiations, not for an actual antitrust claim.
The France family built NASCAR from the ground up through hard work, innovation and risk-taking, Stephenson said — an “American success story” that “shouldn’t result in a lawsuit, but in admiration.”
Stephenson said race teams on average generated a combined $640 million in sponsor dollars per year and are receiving $431 million from the new media rights deal and the sport’s charter system, which guarantees certain revenues to teams.
“If charters are so bad, why do great businessmen keep buying them and investing in them?” Stephenson said. “If charters are so bad, why do they want to make them permanent?”
Though jury selection largely went smoothly, there were some minor hiccups associated with choosing an impartial group related to a case with the most famous athlete in the world.
Two prospective jurors were dismissed after they said their fandom for Jordan would make it impossible for them to remain impartial.
“I like Mike,” one man explained before pumping his fist at Jordan as he walked out of the courtroom upon his dismissal.
Another man said he had Jordan posters and couldn’t wait to tell his son what he’d done on this Monday. He smiled at Jordan while walking out of court.
Most of the prospective jurors seemed to know little about the case itself — or even NASCAR. Only three of 23 remaining candidates at one point said they had even heard of the lawsuit, and three of the remaining 19 people later said they were race fans.
One woman, a fan of Hamlin’s rival, Hendrick Motorsports, said her negative opinion of Hamlin would impact her impartiality and was dismissed.
23XI and Front Row filed an antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR and CEO Jim France in October 2024, alleging monopolistic practices over how NASCAR conducts business as the premier stock‑car racing series, setting off what has been a bitter legal battle that could dramatically alter the most popular form of motorsport in the United States.
Should NASCAR win, it would reinforce the league’s business model for its 77 years in existence. If 23XI and Front Row triumph, it could reshape the very foundation of a sport where teams are considered separate private businesses and many say they struggle to turn a profit.
After two-plus years of negotiations, the two suing teams were spurred by NASCAR’s take-it-or-leave-it offer to teams in September 2024 to extend the charter agreement, which is comparable to franchises in most professional stick-and-ball sports and assures teams a floor of guaranteed revenue. Thirteen teams signed the extension, with only 23XI and Front Row opting against it. They filed their lawsuit the next month while also aligning with two of the most renowned litigators in sports law.
In the weeks and months since, the two sides have sparred in and out of the courtroom. At the crux of the issue was NASCAR’s refusal to grant permanent charters, preferring instead to align the length of the charter agreement with that of its media rights deal (both were for seven years, through the 2031 season). The teams also wanted increased revenue and a greater say in governance, though both of these issues were considered secondary to obtaining permanent charters.
The cost of owning one of 36 available charters has grown astronomically since the system was introduced in 2016. In the formative years, charters were being sold for just under $2 million, and there was doubt whether charters would ever actually carry any significant value. Over the past few years, though, the market has exploded, with the most recent sale this summer going for $45 million. Many owners and team principals believe that the number could eventually exceed nine figures.
To achieve that, however, teams say the charters need to be permanent, with no concern that the system could one day be eliminated. NASCAR argues otherwise.
