HomeSportsMichael Jordan, NASCAR escalates feud with antitrust briefs

Michael Jordan, NASCAR escalates feud with antitrust briefs

Michael Jordan and the Michael Jordan of sports antitrust litigation – attorney Jeffrey Kessler – say in a new lawsuit that NASCAR and its CEO, James France, are behaving like a “monopolistic bully” by attacking those who “weak their authority” dare to question’.

But in their own new filing, NASCAR and France label Jordan and Kessler’s demand for a preliminary injunction as a “masterclass in adversarial” and a ploy to “secure more money” and more favorable contract terms than they could at the negotiating table mediate.

More from Sportico.com

The two sides filed their dueling brief in a federal court in North Carolina on Wednesday, with 23XI Racing, co-owned by Michael Jordan, and Front Row Motorsports continuing their antitrust lawsuit.

The Jordan-led plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their request for expedited discovery. The two racing teams are seeking an order from U.S. District Judge Frank D. Whitney to let them compete as de facto chartered teams, despite not having signed NASCAR’s 2025 charter agreement. The order would also prevent NASCAR from enforcing a contractual release of antitrust claims. NASCAR is contesting the expedited discovery and filed a brief Wednesday outlining its opposition to a preliminary injunction.

23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have retained Kessler and his firm, Winston & Strawn, in hopes that Kessler will continue his winning streak in sports antitrust cases.

Kessler, who previously litigated on behalf of Tom Brady, members of the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team (USWNT) and major sports associations, has risen to prominence representing college athletes suing the NCAA, conferences and colleges over how they agreed to restrict recruiting. and athlete retention. In 2021, Kessler convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to rule 9-0 against the NCAA in the case Alston case, which involved rules limiting athletes’ compensation for education-related expenses. He has also been instrumental in negotiating a multi-billion dollar settlement, which, if given final approval and can withstand challenges, would resolve the issues House, Cardr and Hubbard antitrust litigation by transforming college sports into a professional sports model, where colleges pay athletes directly.

See also  Fantasy Football Week 11 Rankings: Flex (half PPR)

In a filing last week, NASCAR highlighted that 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports are attempting to use the antitrust discovery process as a “weapon” to inflict business damage on the auto racing sanctioning company. The plaintiffs are also depicted as trying to secure the benefits of charter agreements – which other teams have signed – without accepting responsibilities. NASCAR further alleges that the plaintiffs are improperly requesting documents that predate the four-year statute of limitations for antitrust claims.

Kessler disputes these claims by raising several allegations in his brief. The lawyer describes his client’s request for expedited discovery as reasonable, as the defendants “should have prepared” to hand over documents after being notified of the requests on October 9. He also argues that there is evidence of anticompetitive conduct prior to the statute of limitations. “is relevant in a monopolization case” because it can help establish the existence and pattern of exclusionary practices.

See also  Game New England Patriots vs. Chicago Bears: How to watch, start time and more

Kessler also calls out NASCAR’s unfounded “striking” portrayal of his client’s demand for copies of financial records. He claims these documents are “directly relevant” to a plaintiff seeking to prove that a defendant generated monopoly profits and caused economic harm.

Meanwhile, NASCAR’s new filing, written by Tricia Wilson Magee and other attorneys from Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick and Latham & Watkins, focuses on the plaintiffs’ underlying demand for a preliminary injunction. NASCAR states that while a preliminary injunction is intended to maintain the status quo, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports are seeking a superior condition that they have not been able to achieve through negotiations. NASCAR accuses the plaintiffs of criticizing the 2025 charter as anti-competitive. In fact, as NASCAR puts it, the terms were negotiated and assured the plaintiffs “guaranteed racing spots in the Cup Series and a much larger share of NASCAR’s media revenue.”

NASCAR also emphasizes precedents, including Brantmeier vs. NCAAwhich the NCAA is currently winning – that an injunction should only be granted “in the most extraordinary circumstances.” The Jordanian group is failing to meet that lofty standard, NASCAR argues, because they “had the opportunity to sign charters but refused to accept them.”

The plaintiffs’ claim that they could lose goodwill without an injunction is also being portrayed by NASCAR as anomalous. NASCAR notes that injunctions are intended to prevent irreparable harm, which normally means a type of damage that monetary damages cannot later repair. NASCAR says the alleged harm to competition would all be “recoverable with monetary damages,” especially since 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have already confirmed they will compete without charters, “as they have done in the past.”

See also  The Lakers' undefeated start to the NBA season ended at the hands of the Suns

As an additional argument, NASCAR underlines that it should be treated as a sports corporation under antitrust law. Such an undertaking, NASCAR said, is not required to “admit every team that wants to compete” or “protect teams that do not want to compete.”

To that point, NASCAR emphasizes that exclusivity provisions are “common to all sports” and increase economic competition, “because they make the product more attractive to broadcasters, fans and sponsors who have other entertainment options.”

That argument is similar to that made by the PGA Tour, UFC and other sports companies in defending exclusivity clauses, because they give broadcasters and sponsors confidence that the best the sport has to offer will compete in the companies’ broadcast and sponsored events.

Expect additional filings as the court weighs whether to grant expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction.

The best of Sportico.com

Sign up for the Sportico newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

- Advertisement -
RELATED ARTICLES

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular

Recent Comments