Michael Jordan Sues NASCAR in High-Stakes Antitrust Trial
Jordan explains that he did this because he thought, “Someone had to step forward and challenge [NASCAR].”
Summary
- Michael Jordan testified in an antitrust case against NASCAR, stating he felt compelled to challenge the entity over its unfair business model
- The NBA icon criticized the low revenue share, noting it was “far less than any business I’ve ever been a part of”
- The lawsuit was triggered when NASCAR issued a 6-hour ultimatum for teams to sign a contract that refused to make team charters permanent
NBA icon Michael Jordan ignited a landmark antitrust trial, testifying that he felt compelled to sue NASCAR over a business model that he believes unfairly disadvantages teams and drivers. Jordan’s testimony outlined why his co-owned team, 23XI Racing, joined Front Row Motorsports in challenging the top U.S. auto racing series.
The six-time NBA champion was direct about his motivation, speaking to the jury, “Someone had to step forward and challenge the entity. I sat in those meetings with longtime owners who were brow-beaten for so many years trying to make change. I was a new person, I wasn’t afraid. I felt I could challenge NASCAR as a whole.” Jordan clarified that he desired a genuine partnership, noting the revenue split was “far less than any business I’ve ever been a part of.”
The lawsuit stems from NASCAR’s refusal to make team charters (which guarantee race revenue) permanent, giving teams only six hours in September 2024 to sign a binding extension. Jordan and 23XI, co-owned with Denny Hamlin, refused the deal. Jordan outlined his objections, “One, I didn’t think it was economically viable. Two, it said you could not sue NASCAR — that was an antitrust violation, I felt. Three, they gave us an ultimatum I didn’t think was fair to 23XI. I wanted a partnership, and permanent charters wasn’t even a consideration. The pillars that the teams wanted, no one on the NASCAR side even negotiated or compromised. They were not even open-minded to welcome those conversations, so this is where we ended up.” His testimony frames the trial as a battle for fundamental revenue stability and fairness in the sport.
