“Allowed them to have a little bit more control”: Antitrust expert details why NASCAR settled with 23XI, FRM

NASCAR settled with 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports on December 11, 2025, ending a 15-month antitrust lawsuit that had dragged the sport into public scrutiny. The agreement brings structural changes, most notably evergreen charters, and includes confidential financial compensation for the teams. Antitrust litigator Meegan Hollywood believes that it is a significant payout.

NASCAR did not reveal the financial stipulations in its joint statement with teams upon case settlement:

"As a condition of the settlement agreement, NASCAR will issue an amendment to existing charter holders detailing the updated terms for signature, which will include “evergreen” charters, subject to mutual agreement. The financial terms of the settlement are confidential and will not be released."

Shinder, Cantor & Lerner law firm's antitrust lawyer, Meegan Hollywood, suggested to Sports Business Journal that the settlement cost NASCAR around 10-25% of the $365 million in damages requested. Another attorney believed that settling was for no less than 50%. That implies a settlement of anywhere from roughly $36.5 million up to the low hundreds of millions. She added the reason behind it:

“I suspect also that this particular settlement allowed them to have a little bit more control in the changes that they made to the charter system. Because in addition to the sort of financial risk, NASCAR did run the risk of having court-mandated changes and then they sort of would have had to do that not on their own terms. This probably allowed them to make certain changes on their own terms and have some more internal control.”

Legal costs are part of the estimate. The teams recruited Winston & Strawn, while the governing body hired Latham & Watkins. Hollywood estimated combined legal fees could approach $50 million. Others suggest that the figure could be higher. The threat of a jury awarding treble damages on a multi-hundred-million claim made settlement an attractive, if costly, way for NASCAR to limit exposure and retain control over how reforms are implemented.

The lawsuit accused NASCAR of using its market power to limit competition and force an unsustainable business model on teams. The governing body defended its rules as necessary to preserve the integrity and TV value of its product. Judge Kenneth Bell’s pretrial ruling that they had a monopoly over the relevant market left the jury to decide whether they used their position illegally.

Lesa France (C) and lead defendant, Christopher Yates (R), at the antitrust trial. Source: Getty

The trial began on December 1, 2025, and produced nine days of testimony, as well as internal emails and text messages that exposed deep tensions between the teams and the sanctioning body. Now, the settlement gives teams evergreen charters and compensation for 23XI and FRM, who ran as open entries for most of 2025. Both teams now regain charters for 2026, while NASCAR keeps its ownership.

---

“Certainly weren’t pretty for them”: Antitrust expert on the cultural damage of the texts revealed in NASCAR lawsuit

Richard Childress and Commissioner Steve Phelps at Darlington Raceway. Source: Getty

While the settlement guarantees stability for the 2026 season, it also raises questions about accountability and cultural repair inside NASCAR. The trial revealed internal messages and emails that eroded trust throughout the garage.

Texts revealed dismissive and hostile language about team owners and rival series. One exchange referenced Richard Childress in a derogatory way. Other messages like “put a knife in this trash series,” displayed blunt antipathy toward competing series like the SRX. It added to the teams' argument about intent.

“Certainly weren’t pretty for them,” Meegan Hollywood added. “But ultimately it’s so hard to tell with how a jury is going to interpret any single piece of evidence. Sometimes I look at things and I’m like this is a smoking gun, and I then I go into a deposition, and I put it in front of a witness, and they have a totally different plausible story about it. So you really never know.”

Hollywood pointed to two realities. First, juries often respond to clear, human evidence. An angry text can be more compelling than a financial loophole in a spreadsheet. Second, litigation is unpredictable. The legal meaning of words depends on testimony and context.

For NASCAR, the reputational damage was immediate and visible. The trial forced the sport to confront governance, communication, and tone in a public forum. Hollywood also praised Judge Kenneth Bell’s handling of the case. The judge’s market-definition ruling gave the plaintiffs a strategic advantage, and she believes he “got it right” through most of the high-stakes proceeding.

Get the latest NASCAR All-Star race news, Xfinity Series updates, breaking news, rumors, and today’s top stories with the latest news on NASCAR.

Edited by Hitesh Nigam