Michael Jordan Draws Packed Courtroom as He Testifies in NASCAR Antitrust Trial

CHARLOTTE, N.C.—After Friday’s lunch break in the “23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports v. NASCAR” antitrust trial, Judge Kenneth D. Bell entered to a packed courtroom in the Western District of North Carolina courthouse.

“I take it Mr. Jordan is the next witness,” Bell said wryly. “Anyone who’s not already in the courtroom will not be permitted.”

Mr. Jordan, of course, is former NBA superstar Michael Jordan, majority owner of 23XI Racing, one of the two plaintiffs in the litigation.

During direct questioning, Danielle Williams of Winston & Strawn reviewed Jordan’s history as an athlete.

“I heard that you were pretty good in basketball,” she said.

“I used to be,” allowed Jordan, who led the Chicago Bulls to six NBA championships.

Though Jordan has little to do with the day-to-day operations of 23XI Racing, he was conversant with the issues that led the organization not to sign the 2025 NASCAR Cup Series charter agreement and ultimately to file the lawsuit.

As part of a recurring theme in the plaintiffs’ case, Jordan pointed to four items race teams sought in the 2025 charter agreement: 1) a larger share of NASCAR revenues, 2) governance in terms of voting power over specific cost increases, 3) permanent charters and 4) a one-third share of new business.

Those provisions were not included in the 2025 charter agreement, which was signed by 13 of the 15 Cup Series teams. Front Row Motorsports joined 23XI in declining to sign and deciding to sue for damages under the 2016 charter agreement.

Under cross-examination by Lawrence E. Buterman, Jordan acknowledged he had relied on long-time financial adviser Curtis Polk for due diligence in deciding whether to join NASCAR star Denny Hamlin in founding the race team he now co-owns.

Hamlin’s initial profit projections in his proposal to Jordan were modest—$900,000 a year. In 2022, the company netted more than $2 million. In 2023, profits were more than $3.5 million.

A lifelong NASCAR fan, Jordan said he had not read either the 2016 or 2025 charter agreements cover-to-cover, but he acknowledged he had praised the charter system concept in the past.

In fact, Jordan communicated to NASCAR chairman and CEO Jim France that “you and your family did a great service to the sport by starting the charter system.”

Asked by Buterman whether the charter system is good for the teams and NASCAR, and whether the charter system provides value to the teams by attracting sponsors and investors, Jordan replied in the affirmative.

Before Jordan took the stand, Joe Gibbs Racing co-owner Heather Gibbs provided emotionally charged testimony in favor of permanent charters, reiterating a request she had made in a May 2024 letter to NASCAR.

“I think they’re absolutely vital to the teams,” said Gibbs, whose husband, Coy Gibbs died at age 49 on Nov. 6, 2022, the day after their son, Ty Gibbs, had won the NASCAR Xfinity Series championship at Phoenix Raceway.

Gibbs said she saw permanent charters as a safety net. Joe Gibbs Racing, founded by three-time Super Bowl-winning coach Joe Gibbs, has no outside sources of revenue, she asserted.

NASCAR president Steve O’Donnell, in concluding his testimony earlier in the day, explained NASCAR’s rationale in opposing permanent charters. O’Donnell cited the uncertainty of revenue streams, broadcast rights and racing schedules as a major drawback to permanent charters.

“We need the ability to be flexible,” O’Donnell said.

Friday’s session ended with the cross-examination of John Marshall, executive director of the Race Team Alliance (RTA), a non-profit consortium of NASCAR Cup Series team owners.

Marshall compared franchise values in other sports with NASCAR teams, but under cross-examination, he conceded that the sanctioning body, a family-owned enterprise, differed from so-called “stick-and-ball” franchises where the teams own their respective leagues and the buy-in is enormous.

Marshall, whose cross-examination will continue when the trial resumes Monday morning, acknowledged that the RTA had trademarked the name “U.S. Racing League”—suggesting an alternative to NASCAR—but had not pursued the prospects of a rival series.