AVONDALE, Ariz. (AP) — A federal judge on Friday denied a petition filed by two NASCAR teams — one of them owned by Basketball Hall of Famer Michael Jordan — to be recognized as licensed teams while they are continuing their antitrust lawsuit against the stock car. series and president Jim France.

The motion was signed by Federal Judge Frank Whitney of the U.S. District Court for Western North Carolina in Charlotte, at exactly the same time that NASCAR executives delivered their annual “State of the Sport” address at the Phoenix Raceway.

NASCAR Chairman Steve Phelps opened the speech by noting that series officials had not publicly discussed charter negotiations during the more than two-year process and would not start now.

“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,” he said. added. “And we did it because the racing teams were upside down financially.”

The court’s ruling came just hours before the Cup Series cars took to 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 competing in Sunday’s finale.

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.

Jeffrey Kessler, an antitrust lawyer hired by 23XI and Front Row Motorsports in the legal battle, indicated after Monday’s hearing in Charlotte that the plaintiffs could immediately appeal the decision.

“We are pleased with the court’s decision to expedite discovery and expedite the timeline of our case against NASCAR,” Kessler said Friday. “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 fairer and more equitable system within NASCAR that complies with antitrust laws.

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 and 13 of the 15 teams signed the deal.

23XI Racing and Front Row accused NASCAR of being “monopolistic tyrants” by forcing teams into what is essentially a revenue sharing agreement between the sanctioning body and its teams.

NASCAR has since rescinded charter extension offers to 23XI and Front Row, whose current charters expire at the end of the year.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

23XI and Front Row have requested that things remain status quo while their antitrust case moves forward, as the new charters 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 risked losing sponsors by competing in open teams because sponsors “could drop (them) if they…did 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 Reddick was allowed to terminate his contract with the team if there was no charter for his car — and that he could leave as the defending Cup champion if he won 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.

The judge was not convinced by this argument. Whitney wrote that demonstrating the “possibility of irreparable harm” was not sufficient to obtain an injunction and that “the irreparable harm required must be neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent.”

“Although plaintiffs claim they are on the brink of irreparable harm, the 2025 racing season is months away – the stock cars remain in the garage,” the judge added. “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 said if circumstances change, both teams could file a new motion for a preliminary injunction. The teams had until December 2 to respond.

___

AP Auto Racing: https://apnews.com/hub/auto-racing