“I know people are frustrated about this,” Phelps said. “We are never going to negotiate in the media about charters. And we are very happy that 32 of the 36 charters were extended because they were racing teams for whom the agreement that was put on the table for them, the big main victory for the racing teams, was money.

“I won’t go into detail about how the money is distributed, but what I will say is that the amount of money now places the racing teams, starting at 25, as the biggest beneficiary of our media deal. And we did it because the racing teams were upside down financially.

The court’s ruling came just hours before the Cup cars hit the track for the first practice session of the championship weekend. Tyler Reddick, who drives for Jordan-owned 23XI Racing, is one of four drivers who will compete in Sunday’s finale in Phoenix.

When the decision was made and NASCAR was informed as executives sat on stage at Phoenix Raceway, NASCAR Chief Operating Officer Steve O’Donnell joked, “You can’t make up for it, because of the timing,” while he and Phelps declined to comment on the decision. injunction.

Jeffrey Kessler, the nation’s top antitrust lawyer, indicated after Monday’s hearing in Charlotte that the plaintiffs could immediately appeal the ruling.

“We are pleased with the court’s decision to expedite discovery and expedite the timeline of our case against NASCAR,” Kessler said in a statement. “While we are disappointed that the preliminary injunction was denied without prejudice and as premature, which we intend to appeal, this denial has no bearing on the merits of our case.

“My clients will move forward to race in 2025 and fight for a more fair and equitable system in NASCAR that complies with antitrust laws.”

The problem is that 23XI and Front Row Motorsports refused to sign a take-it-or-leave-it charter agreement presented to teams by NASCAR in September, just 48 hours before the start of the playoffs. The offers came after more than two years of negotiations between NASCAR and its teams, and 13 of the 15 organizations signed the agreement.

23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have refused to sign and accused NASCAR of being “monopolistic tyrants” in what is essentially a revenue-sharing deal between the sanctioning body and its teams.

NASCAR has since rescinded offers for charter extensions to 23XI and Front Row. Their current charters expire at the end of the calendar year. Teams are free to operate as “open” teams, but their charter’s lack of protection deprives them of an equal share of revenue, a guaranteed place in the 38-race field and other provisions of the race agreements. charter.

23XI and Front Row have asked that things remain status quo while their antitrust case moves forward, as new charters that take effect in 2025 prevent teams from suing NASCAR. Kessler requested that the teams be released from this clause for the duration of the trial.

In his ruling, the judge found that Kessler failed to demonstrate that 23XI and Front Row would “suffer irreparable harm in multiple ways.”

Kessler had argued that the plaintiffs claimed they would “risk” losing sponsors by competing in open teams because sponsors “might abandon (them) if they…do not qualify for all of their races.”

For example, Kessler said 23XI’s sponsorship deals require each sponsored car to compete in every Cup Series race, so failing to qualify for a race could reduce the amount of sponsorship money that she receives.

The plaintiffs also alleged that they would “risk” losing their drivers if their cars were not chartered. Kessler said 23XI driver Reddick is allowed to terminate his contract with the team if there is no charter for his car – and he could leave as the reigning Cup champion. he won the title on Sunday.

Kessler also argued that racing as open teams “could threaten (their) continued existence”, as both teams claimed they would lose substantial revenue without charters. And the plaintiffs alleged they could lose the goodwill of fans and sponsors if they failed to qualify for a race. .

But Whitney wrote that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must “demonstrate that irreparable harm is probable in the absence of an injunction” and that it is not enough to demonstrate the “possibility of irreparable harm.”

Furthermore, Whitney wrote that “the irreparable harm required must be neither remote nor speculative, but real and imminent.” He said that “although plaintiffs have alleged that they would face a risk of irreparable harm, they have not sufficiently alleged present, immediate and urgent irreparable harm, but rather only speculative and possible harm.” In other words, even though the plaintiffs claim they are on the verge of irreparable harm, the 2025 racing season is just months away – the stock cars remain in the garage.

Whitney said, “Plaintiffs have not alleged that their business cannot survive without a preliminary injunction. Instead, they claim their businesses might not survive without a preliminary injunction.

Whitney concluded that Kessler had not met the required burden for a preliminary injunction, but that if circumstances change, the plaintiffs can file a new motion for a preliminary injunction. The teams had until December 2 to respond.