Michael Jordan’s Racing Team Wins Key Legal Fight in NASCAR Case

Michael Jordan’s racing team secured a crucial win on the threshold issue of market definition in its case against NASCAR, as a federal judge ruled that premier stock car racing is its own separate and distinct market.

The Tuesday ruling by Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina strengthens Jordan’s antitrust claims as his team, 23XI Racing, and co-plaintiff Front Row Motorsports Inc. head toward a Dec. 1 trial against the racing organization.

Defining a market is the foundation for Sherman Act claims and quite difficult to prove, as plaintiffs must convince the courts of the precise boundaries of competition.

In his order, Bell granted Jordan’s team partial summary judgment, agreeing that NASCAR holds monopsony power in the relevant market. Monopsony power exists when there is one dominant buyer in a market, controlling both prices and terms.

“NASCAR plainly exercises monopsony power in the relevant market under the governing analysis,” Bell said. “Not only has it operated the only premier stock car racing series in the United States for many years, the barriers for others to enter the market (availability of large racing tracks, highly qualified racing car teams, etc.) are obvious.”

Bell also rejected NASCAR’s argument that the teams’ market definition was a “gerrymandered” fail-safe market.

The team plaintiffs alleged that premier stock car racing is a distinct form of automobile racing and that other motorsports like Formula 1 and IndyCar aren’t substitute purchasers of these specific stock car racing services.

They argued that NASCAR holds 100% share of the market for purchasing the services of premier stock car racing teams.

“NASCAR’s argument that the Plaintiffs’ relevant market is a ‘fail-safe’ or ‘gerrymandered’ market because—according to both Parties—the NASCAR Cup Series is the only buyer of premier stock car racing team services in the United States is incorrect,” Bell said. “Just because there is only one racing league currently in the market does not mean that there could not be others.”

Jeffrey Kessler, a partner with Winston & Strawn LLP who represents the racing teams, said in a statement he is pleased with the court’s ruling.

“This means that the trial can now be focused on whether NASCAR has maintained that power through anticompetitive acts and used that power to harm teams,” Kessler said. “We’re prepared to present our case to the jury and are focused on obtaining a verdict that benefits all of the teams, partners, drivers, and the fans.”

Latham & Watkins LLP, which represent NASCAR, didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

The two firms are frequent rivals in antitrust cases involving sports organizations.

The case is 2311 Racing LLC v. NASCAR, W.D.N.C., No. 3:24-cv-00886, 11/4/25.