NASCAR Trial: Bob Jenkins Details Contentious charter Negotiations, Disputes “Anti-Competitive” claims
Wilmington, DE - November 29, 2024 – Bob Jenkins, co-plaintiff alongside Michael Jordan in the lawsuit against NASCAR, testified today, November 29th, offering further insight into the fraught negotiations surrounding the sport’s charter system.Jenkins’ testimony on Day 3 of the trial centered on the period leading up to NASCAR’s September 6, 2024, offer to teams, which Jenkins described as feeling like “a gun to your head,” though he clarified he didn’t personally favor that framing.
Jenkins, a key figure in 23XI Racing’s formation, detailed a perceived impasse with NASCAR Chairman and CEO jim France, identified as a defendant in the suit. According to Jenkins, France was the driving force behind a hardline stance. “that’s what Jim wanted,” Jenkins stated,referring to the September 6th offer. He contrasted this with his own and then-NASCAR COO Steve O’Donnell’s efforts to reach a compromise. “Can say (then-COO Steve O’Donnell) and I put our best foot forward, but it was a brick wall,” Jenkins wrote in a text message presented as evidence, to which a recipient, Phelps, responded, “Super disappointing.”
The testimony also shed light on NASCAR’s “goodwill provision” within charter agreements, which prevents even minority team owners (holding as little as 10%) from owning or investing in competing stock car series. Jenkins’ attorney, Kessler, characterized this as a “non-compete” agreement, arguing it was “anti-competitive will,” a description Prime disagreed with, stating, “I do [think it’s goodwill].” NASCAR’s legal team objected to kessler’s characterization, and the judge sustained the objection. Kessler further pressed the point, highlighting a clause preventing charter teams from joining a competitor series for over a year even after forfeiting their charter.
Jenkins also addressed concerns regarding intellectual property protection for NASCAR’s “Next Gen” car. He referenced a strategy document outlining the risk of a “copycat series” without such protections. However, Jenkins testified that NASCAR ultimately implemented standard IP practices by prohibiting teams from using the Next Gen car in any series outside of NASCAR, a measure he said the teams understood and accepted. “They understood the Next Gen car design and all the protections that went with it,yes,” jenkins affirmed.
Under cross-examination, Jenkins refuted the notion that earlier communications indicated ill intent from NASCAR. He also stated that the teams’ demand for $20 million per car in revenue payouts was financially unsustainable, stating it would “put NASCAR bankrupt.” He clarified his earlier testimony regarding attempts to “lock up” tracks, explaining it simply involved securing the schedule for the following season, not preventing access for competing series. Jenkins emphasized the impracticality of permanent charters, stating, “You can’t negotiate a deal and have the exact same deal forever. You can’t write a contract today that’s going to last forever.”
The trial, which centers on claims that NASCAR improperly interfered with the sale of charters and stifled competition, continues with further testimony expected to illuminate the complex dynamics between the sport’s governing body and its team owners. A charter grants a team guaranteed entry into every NASCAR Cup Series points race and a minimum revenue share.
