Famous Cases for Expert Witnesses: 23XI vs. NASCAR 

By Noah Bolmer 

In late 2025, a federal courtroom in Charlotte became the stage for a dispute that drew attention far beyond racing. The case involved a basketball legend turned team owner and the organization that governs stock car competition in the United States. At issue was the structure of the sport: who controls entry, how revenue is divided, and whether teams have meaningful choices in the system that defines their future. 

The trial drew attention because it placed a global sports figure at the center of a challenge to NASCAR’s business model. It highlighted how professional sports depend not only on athletes and events but also on the financial structures that shape competition. Central to the proceedings was expert testimony that explained those structures in clear terms and ultimately influenced the course of the case. 

Background 

The National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR) serves as the governing body for stock car racing in the United States, overseeing the rules, schedules, and commercial framework of the sport. To compete in its Cup Series, teams must hold a charter, which functions as a license guaranteeing entry into races and a share of the revenue generated by the league. The charter system was introduced in 2016 with the stated goal of providing stability for teams, but unlike permanent franchises in other professional sports, these charters were subject to renewal under conditions set entirely by NASCAR. That renewal requirement left teams dependent on the league’s decisions, creating tension over how much control NASCAR could exercise over their future. 

In 2024, NASCAR presented teams with a renewal agreement that included a clause requiring them to waive any antitrust claims. Thirteen teams signed the deal, but two refused: 23XI Racing, owned by Michael Jordan, and Front Row Motorsports. Their refusal marked a turning point, as they argued that NASCAR’s control over venues, technology, and contractual terms effectively eliminated competitive alternatives.  

In the context of professional sports, antitrust challenges have historically targeted restrictive practices that limit the ability of teams or athletes to negotiate freely. The NFL faced litigation over its free agency rules, and the NCAA was challenged for restricting athlete compensation. The NASCAR case fit within this tradition, raising the question of whether the league’s charter system crossed the line from regulation into monopoly. 

The Trial 

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Charlotte, North Carolina, the city that serves as NASCAR’s operational hub, and began in late 2025. From the outset, it was clear that the dispute extended beyond two teams. The claims went to the heart of how the sport was structured, raising questions about whether NASCAR’s model concentrated power in ways that suppressed competition and limited the independence of its participants. 

Opening Arguments 

Attorneys for the league opened by defending the charter system as a stabilizing force. They emphasized that guaranteed entry and revenue shares reduced financial risk, reassured sponsors, and provided continuity for fans. The waiver of antitrust claims, they argued, was a necessary safeguard against litigation that could destabilize the sport. Counsel for 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports countered that the renewal terms were coercive, leaving teams with no genuine choice but to accept conditions that stripped them of legal recourse. Their refusal was presented as a stand for autonomy rather than a gamble, highlighting the imbalance of power between the league and its participants. 

Evidence 

Internal communications among team owners revealed frustration with the renewal process and skepticism about the league’s motives. These disclosures gave the jury a glimpse into the strained relationships behind the litigation. Economic documentsshowed how NASCAR’s ownership of major tracks and exclusivity clauses limited alternatives, while reliance on single‑source suppliers for the “Next Gen car” raised costs and reduced flexibility. Together, the evidence painted a picture of a system that concentrated control in the league’s hands. 

Testimony 

Testimony from NASCAR executives sought to reinforce the idea that teams had options, pointing to the possibility of competing without charters. Team representatives rejected that claim, arguing that “open” entries were not viable for sustained competition and that the charter system locked them into unfavorable terms. The contrast between these accounts sharpened the central question of whether the system offered stability or imposed dependency.  

Plaintiff’s Expert Witness: Edward Snyder 

Edward A. Snyder, professor at the Yale School of Management and former chief economist for the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, was retained by the plaintiffs to analyze the economics of NASCAR’s charter system. Snyder’s testimony quantified the financial impact of the charter model and compared it to other sports. He pointed to Formula 1’s revenue sharing, where teams receive a larger portion of the sport’s income, and contrasted it with NASCAR’s share. He argued that NASCAR’s ownership of tracks and exclusivity agreements eliminated competitive alternatives. Reporters highlighted several of his most striking points: 

Damages estimate: Snyder calculated that NASCAR owed $364.7 million in damages, based on lost revenue between 2021 and 2025. 

Monopoly claim: He testified that “teams don’t have anywhere else to sell their services,” underscoring the lack of alternatives. 

Structural critique: Snyder emphasized NASCAR’s control over tracks, technology suppliers, and contracts, framing the system as one that suppressed competition. 

Coverage in outlets such as NBC Sports and Associated Press described Snyder as the pivotal expert in the trial. His damages model and monopoly framing were reported as central to the plaintiffs’ case, and the visibility of his testimony increased pressure on NASCAR as the proceedings moved toward resolution. 

Defense Expert Witnesses 

NASCAR’s defense team presented several experts, but their testimony was shaped by Daubert challenges and motions in limine that narrowed what the jury could hear. 

Edwin Desser, a consultant on sports media rights, was retained to testify about the valuation of NASCAR’s broadcast agreements. Plaintiffs moved to exclude portions of his testimony, arguing that his narrative about NASCAR’s history and leadership was outside his expertise. The court agreed, granting the motion in part and barring him from opining on NASCAR’s operations. On the more difficult issue of media rights, the court applied Daubert principles to distinguish between permissible business justifications and legally impermissible “cross‑market balancing.” It ruled that Desser could not argue that higher broadcast payments were themselves procompetitive, citing National Society of Professional Engineers, but allowed him to testify about media rights valuation in the damages context. 

Stephen O’Donnell, a NASCAR executive, was designated as an expert witness, but the court limited him to lay testimony. He was permitted to rebut specific points raised by plaintiffs’ expert Timothy Frost, but not qualified as an expert in his own right. 

Paul K. Meyer, a financial analyst, faced partial exclusion. The court barred him from presenting financial analysis of Liberty Media’s Formula 1 payments because it relied on non‑public data, but otherwise denied plaintiffs’ motion. His testimony was admitted, with the court noting that critiques went to weight rather than admissibility. 

Together, these rulings defined the defense’s expert strategy. NASCAR’s experts were permitted to appear, but their scope was narrowed: Desser’s media rights testimony restricted to damages, O’Donnell limited to lay rebuttal, and Meyer curtailed onFormula 1 comparisons. In contrast, Snyder’s testimony for the plaintiffs went forward without exclusion, leaving the defense in a position where its experts could not fully counterbalance the plaintiffs’ economic framing. 

Atmosphere and Closing 

The atmosphere in court reflected the stakes. Exchanges between attorneys were sharp, and those testifying showed visible strain under questioning. The presence of high‑profile figures underscored the importance of the proceedings, while the blend of technical economic analysis and sports celebrity gave the trial unusual visibility. As closing arguments approached, the clarity of expert testimony and the risk of an unfavorable ruling increased pressure on NASCAR to consider settlement.  

Resolution 

The trial came to an abrupt end on December 11, 2025, when the parties announced a settlement after eight days of testimony. Judge Kenneth Bell dismissed the jury once attorneys confirmed the agreement, closing the case before closing arguments could be delivered. The settlement resolved the central issue that had driven the litigation: the permanence of charters. NASCAR agreed to amend its system to create “evergreen” charters, giving teams long‑term equity and guaranteed participation in the Cup Series. This marked a reversal from the league’s earlier stance, where Chairman Jim France had testified that flexibility was necessary to adapt to changes in the sport. 

The announcement was made in dramatic fashion. Lead plaintiffs’ attorney Jeffrey Kessler told the court that the matter was “positively settled,” and outside the courthouse Michael Jordan stood alongside NASCAR chairman Jim France as the resolution was made public. The joint statement issued by the parties described the deal as a “mutually agreed‑upon resolution that delivers long‑term stability and creates the conditions for meaningful growth for all teams in a more competitive environment.” 

Coverage framed the resolution as a turning point for stock car racing. Forbes likened the conflict to “a family squabble bigger than anything ever seen around a holiday dinner table,” while other outlets emphasized that the settlement avoided a jury verdict on antitrust claims. For the teams, the permanence of charters secured the stability they had sought since the system was introduced; for NASCAR, the agreement ended a high‑stakes trial that threatened to redefine its authority. 

Conclusion 

The trial’s trajectory revealed how antitrust litigation in sports hinges on expert framing, judicial timing, and the pressure of public visibility. Snyder’s damages model gave the dispute a quantifiable center, while the settlement demonstrated how quickly proceedings can pivot once the risk of a jury verdict becomes tangible. 

If you’d like to be considered for expert witness opportunities, join Round Table Group. For over 30 years, we’ve connected litigators with the most qualified experts across disciplines. Call us at 202‑908‑4500 or sign up today to learn more.