Michael Jordan sued NASCAR in an antitrust case because he believed the league’s business system gave it monopoly‑level control over money, team access, and long‑term security, making it too hard for teams like his 23XI Racing to be financially stable or build real equity in the sport.

Quick Scoop: What’s this lawsuit about?

Michael Jordan is a co‑owner of the NASCAR Cup Series team 23XI Racing, along with driver Denny Hamlin. In late 2024, 23XI and another team, Front Row Motorsports, filed an antitrust lawsuit accusing NASCAR of operating as an illegal monopoly in “premier” stock‑car racing and using that power to tilt the entire system in NASCAR’s favor.

At the center is NASCAR’s charter system – think of it like a franchise right that guarantees a team’s car a spot on the grid and a share of the purse. Jordan’s side argued that NASCAR used this system, along with tight control over tracks, TV money, and rules, to leave teams with huge costs, low leverage, and little real ownership in what they were building.

The core reasons: why did Michael Jordan sue NASCAR?

You can think of his reasons in three big buckets:

1. Monopoly and antitrust concerns

Jordan’s lawsuit claims NASCAR is effectively a monopoly in top‑level stock‑car racing and that it abused that power.

  • NASCAR controls the premier series, most of the main tracks, and the rules that govern who races where and how.
  • The suit argues NASCAR uses exclusive track agreements and restrictive rules (like limiting where Cup cars can run) to block potential competitors and keep all top‑tier stock‑car racing under its umbrella.
  • A federal judge even agreed NASCAR holds monopoly power in this specific market; the trial then focused on whether that power was used illegally.

In simple terms: Jordan’s side said, “You own the only real big league in town and you’re using that position to squeeze the teams.”

2. The charter fight: security vs control

The flashpoint was NASCAR’s new multi‑year charter agreement that would run through the 2030s.

  • In 2024, NASCAR presented teams with a new charter deal and gave them very little time (reported as mere hours or less than a day) to decide, calling it a final offer after long negotiations.
  • Most teams signed, but 23XI and Front Row refused, saying the terms didn’t give teams enough long‑term security, profit share, or say in how the sport is run.
  • Because they didn’t sign, NASCAR stripped them of their charters, so they had to compete as “open” teams with no guaranteed starting spot and less reliable prize money for much of the 2025 season.

Jordan argued that this showed how little genuine ownership teams had: they pump in tens of millions of dollars, but NASCAR can effectively decide whether they have a guaranteed place on the grid at all. He has publicly said he invested about 40 million dollars into 23XI Racing and still did not feel like he truly “owned” his spot in the sport – NASCAR did.

3. Money, economics, and “someone had to step forward”

Jordan repeatedly framed the lawsuit around the economics of the teams, not just a personal grudge.

  • The complaint says teams carry massive costs (Next Gen cars, parts from NASCAR‑approved suppliers, staff, travel) while NASCAR and its media partners capture most of the revenue upside.
  • The charter deals and revenue sharing, in Jordan’s view, didn’t give teams enough share of TV and media money to make long‑term investments sustainable.
  • On the stand, Jordan said he felt “someone had to step forward” to fight for better economic terms for teams, drivers, partners, employees, and fans.

He described long‑time owners as having been “brow‑beaten” in meetings and said he was willing, as a relative newcomer with his own wealth and stature, to challenge NASCAR’s system head‑on.

What exactly did Jordan’s legal team argue?

Here’s the nutshell version of the antitrust case as laid out by 23XI and Front Row.

  1. Illegal monopoly
    • NASCAR dominates “premier stock‑car racing” in the U.S. and uses exclusive agreements with tracks and media to keep rivals from emerging.
  1. Exclusionary practices
    • By owning or tightly controlling most Cup‑level tracks, and by limiting where Cup cars can compete, NASCAR allegedly blocks other series from using the same venues or cars.
  1. Coercive charter terms
    • Teams were given a take‑it‑or‑leave‑it charter offer on a tight deadline, with the threat of losing guaranteed spots and revenue if they refused.
 * The charter agreement reportedly included a non‑disparagement clause, curbing teams’ ability to publicly criticize NASCAR.
  1. Economic harm to teams
    • Running as open teams without charters, 23XI and Front Row said they lost significant revenue and faced elevated financial risk despite their investments.

In online forums and fan discussions, people often boil this down to: “Jordan thinks NASCAR keeps all the power and money while teams carry the risk,” which is basically the casual summary of the complaint.

How did NASCAR respond?

NASCAR has firmly denied doing anything illegal and framed the dispute as a tough business negotiation, not a monopoly abuse.

  • NASCAR says the charter system is similar to franchise or membership models in other leagues, and that the 2025+ deal actually increased payments to teams.
  • It argues that allowing “open” entries shows the system isn’t anti‑competitive; teams can still race without charters, even if it’s riskier.
  • NASCAR also notes that the majority of teams signed the new charter agreement, and some influential owners publicly supported the system and opposed blowing it up.

From NASCAR’s point of view, Jordan and 23XI were simply unhappy with a deal that most competitors accepted, then tried to use antitrust law as leverage for better terms.

What happened in the end?

The case went all the way into trial in late 2025, with Jordan himself testifying, which turned it into a major sports‑business story.

  • After several days of testimony, 23XI Racing, Front Row Motorsports, and NASCAR reached a settlement on the ninth day of the federal trial.
  • As part of the settlement, the sides agreed to “evergreen charters” – effectively making team charters permanent rather than expiring, giving teams the lasting equity stake they’d been fighting for.
  • Teams also won changes like a share of NASCAR’s international media‑rights revenue and the restoration of rules (like a “three‑strike” policy) aimed at stabilizing competition and economics.

Jordan called the deal a step toward building equity for teams and giving them a stronger voice in the sport’s future, presenting the lawsuit as something brought not just for 23XI but for all teams and for long‑term growth of NASCAR.

Forum and trending context

This question – “why did Michael Jordan sue NASCAR?” – has been a big talking point on Reddit’s NASCAR community and other forums since the lawsuit was filed in 2024 and during the 2025 trial. Fans often discuss it in the same breath as broader debates about:

  • Rising costs of the Next Gen car and parts.
  • Whether teams deserve a bigger cut of TV and media money.
  • If NASCAR is too centralized compared to other motorsports series.

In ELI5‑style threads, the most common short answer you’ll see is: “He thinks NASCAR keeps all the power and profit, while teams like his pay the bill and can get their spot taken away at any time.”

SEO mini‑FAQ

Q: Why did Michael Jordan sue NASCAR?
A: Because as co‑owner of 23XI Racing, he believed NASCAR’s charter system, revenue sharing, and control over tracks and rules amounted to an illegal monopoly that hurt teams financially and left them without real long‑term security.

Q: Is the Michael Jordan vs NASCAR lawsuit still going on?
A: No. The sides reached a settlement after about eight–nine days of trial in late 2025, with key changes to charters and revenue structure.

Q: What changed because of the lawsuit?
A: Teams like 23XI and Front Row received charters again, charters across the field became effectively permanent (“evergreen”), and teams gained improved revenue terms including a share of international media rights.

TL;DR: Michael Jordan didn’t sue NASCAR over a single race or penalty; he sued because he believed the entire business model — from charters to revenue sharing to control of tracks and rules — unfairly concentrated power and profit in NASCAR’s hands, leaving teams with huge financial risk and little true ownership, and he felt someone with his clout had to push back.

Information gathered from public forums or data available on the internet and portrayed here.