How historical sports legal battles can shed light on NASCAR’s future

By Amy Greenway-

When Denny Hamlin testified in the opening days of the 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports antitrust trial against NASCAR, the motorsports world found itself revisiting some of the most consequential power struggles in sports history. This case is not just about charters or contract language; it is also about what happens when a dominant sports organization is challenged by the teams that compete within it. 

Adding to the stakes and the interest is the fact that one of the challengers is Michael Jordan, whose role as co-owner of 23XI gives this moment a unique cultural and economic spotlight. 

But, the underlying conflict is not a new one,  however, and history offers insights and warnings for NASCAR’s future.

Two historical cases stand out. The United State Football League’s (USFL) antitrust lawsuit against the NFL in the 1980s and the  Championship Auto Racing Teams (CART)-Indy Racing League (IRL) split that fractured open-wheel racing starting in 1996. 

Each conflict revolved around control, competition and the financial survival of teams, which are the same issues now being brought to the forefront in this remarkable NASCAR trial. 

In the early 1980s, the USFL positioned itself as a spring alternative to the NFL. After Donald Trump purchased the New Jersey Generals, the league, with his guidance, shifted toward a more aggressive strategy: move to a fall schedule, compete head-to-head with the NFL and force a merger through legal pressure. 

The USFL sued the NFL for monopolizing professional football, especially television rights. A jury found that the NFL did operate as a monopoly and had harmed the USFL, but the league’s victory was symbolic. The jury believed the USFL failed to prove meaningful financial damages, awarding only $1, tripled under antitrust law to $3. Within a year, the USFL folded.

This case made the important point that winning an antitrust case as a high-profile figure does not guarantee survival if the league cannot sustain itself financially.

The origins of the CART-IRL conflict actually stretch back earlier than the ’90s. The IndyCar split actually dates to the late ’70s when car owners led by Roger Penske clashed with the sanctioning body USAC. The owners formed CART and twice boycotted USAC’s 500-mile races at Pocono. CART ultimately prevailed, setting the stage for a new owner-driven structure that thrived through the 1980s.

By the mid-1990s, CART controlled top-tier American open-wheel racing, with robust TV ratings, strong sponsorships with household brands and a schedule that featured international events that generated enough interest to make even Bernie Ecclestone take notice. 

Tony George, the then-president of Indianapolis Motor Speedway, believed the series had become too fragmented and expensive. He created the IRL, a rival series centered on cost control, American drivers and oval-focused racing. Tensions escalated as CART teams accused George and IRL of using monopoly control over the Indianapolis 500 to force teams into a new structure, while IRL accused CART of being elitist and financially unsustainable. The split lasted more than a decade, eroding the sports profile in sports as  NASCAR surged in popularity, while IndyCar racing suffered historic declines in viewership, sponsorship and stability. The two sides finally unified in 2008, but it’s taken years in an attempt to regain its previous prominence.

Now, decades later, NASCAR finds itself in a similar legal battle.

23XI Racing, co-owned by Hamlin and Jordan, and Front Row Motorsports claim that NASCAR have created a system in which the charter model, NASCAR’s ownership of tracks, control over supplier networks, Next Gen parts and restrictions on teams’ commercial activity collectively form an illegal monopoly. The teams argue that without structural change, they cannot remain financially viable, mirroring grievances from both the USFL and CART conflicts.

The parallels are striking. Like the USFL, these NASCAR teams argue they cannot secure the commercial opportunities they need because the governing body controls the entire ecosystem. If a court finds monopoly power but minimal damages, like in the USFL case, the teams could win a symbolic victory but see no real change. The NASCAR case also echoes the CART-IRL split, highlighting tensions between the sanctioning body and the teams over decision-making, economics and control of the sport’s future. If NASCAR and the teams cannot reconcile, the sport could face fragmentation, weakened team stability and reduced long-term market strength.

Every major sports antitrust conflict of this kind revolves around one central issue: whether teams can survive under the league’s model. CART teams struggled with rising costs and governance conflicts, the USFL could not survive after losing national TV revenue and some NASCAR teams say they cannot sustainably operate under the current charter and revenue system.

Much like the USFL conflict under Trump, the Michael Jordan factor elevates this case in ways that go beyond team economics. Jordan brings global attention and legitimacy, and his business background with Nike, the Charlotte Hornets NBA Franchise and brand ownership gives weight to the economic arguments at play. He also underscores that even well-funded, well-managed teams find NASCAR’s structure restrictive. His involvement reframes the case as not just another team owner fighting a contract, but as one of the most powerful figures in modern sports saying the system does not work. That perception matters legally, culturally and publicly.

The outcomes vary dramatically depending on the court’s findings. If the teams win, NASCAR could be forced to restructure the charter system, rebalance team revenues, governance roles and commercial freedom, and other teams could gain new leverage. If NASCAR wins, the current model stands, 23XI and Front Row might face long-term competitive disadvantages and the gap between teams and the sanctioning body could widen. History warns that fractured leadership can harm the sport as a whole. CART and IRL taught that litigation and governance battles can set a sport back decades. The USFL taught that even if you win a lawsuit, you can still lose the war.

The NASCAR antitrust trial is not just a business dispute. It is a power struggle that echoes some of the most transformative moments in sports history governance. Whether NASCAR adapts, the teams prevail or both sides compromise, the outcome will shape the future of stock-car racing. History shows that when leagues and teams collide over control, no one escapes unchanged, and with Jordan in the middle of this fight, the entire sports world is now watching.