🛑 Richard Childress has voiced his support for 2 team as they pursue legal action against NASCAR, as he predicts the teams will succeed in the ongoing lawsuit.

Lydia Mee is a contributing sports writer located in the West Midlands, England. Her focus is on F1 and NASCAR. She has in-depth knowledge of Motorsport as a whole. Lydia joined Newsweek in March 2024, having previously written Motorsport content for Sports Illustrated. You can get in touch with Lydia by emailing, [email protected]. You can find her at X @LMeeMotorsport.

 Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.

Richard Childress has voiced his support for 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports as they pursue legal action against NASCAR, as he predicts the teams will succeed in the ongoing lawsuit.

These teams have filed a lawsuit accusing NASCAR of monopolistic practices over the 2025-2031 charter agreements. Amidst growing tension, Childress praised the teams’ decision to challenge the agreement, highlighting the need for fairness within the sport.

The heart of this conflict centers around the NASCAR charter system. Introduced in 2016, charter agreements were meant to bring stability and investment opportunities by guaranteeing teams access to races and a portion of the revenue.

Over the years, the value of these charters has escalated dramatically, from $3 million to over $40 million by 2024. Teams feel pressured as NASCAR has retained control over half of the revenue, leaving the rest for the teams to share. Many, like Childress, argue that this system undervalues their roles, especially when compared to other sports leagues.

NASCAR gave teams tight signing deadlines for the new charter agreement. Childress reveals that teams were given their final agreements only hours before they were due, with threats that unsigned agreements would lead to charter revocations. This pressure left teams with little choice but to comply.

Commenting on the ongoing lawsuit during an appearance on the ‘Dale Jr Download’ podcast, Childress explained:

“They [23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports] had a reason to not sign the agreement. We received it hours before and we had a deadline to sign it.

“There [were] only three or four things that we were missing on that everyone was still trying to negotiate. And when those negotiations [were] over, these two guys went on their own, which I’m glad to see them do it because they stood up for what they felt [were] right.

“I think it’ll end up working out…What we were asking for wasn’t [going to] cost NASCAR nothing… All we wanted was to be treated fair, and that’s all these two guys are asking for now.”

Ty Dillon Sends Warning to NASCAR Rivals Ahead of 2025 Season: ‘I Got Into This Sport to Win’

Richard Childress Laments Staggering $3 Million Loss After 2024 Controversy

$200 Million NASCAR Sponsor Sets Record Straight On 23XI Racing Partnership

Denny Hamlin Branded ‘Easy Target’ As Kevin Harvick Jumps To His Defense

More News: Richard Childress Laments Staggering $3 Million Loss After 2024 Controversy

The latest update on the legal dispute came after a judge ruled against NASCAR’s request to dismiss the lawsuit in January 2025. Judge Bell explained at the time, as previously reported by Newsweek Sports:

“The parties to this action cast their existential dispute in starkly different terms. According to Plaintiffs, NASCAR (led by the dynastic France family) is the iron-fisted monopolistic ruler of premier stock car racing that has imposed “anticompetitive ‘take it or leave it’ terms” on Plaintiffs and other top-tier racing teams.

“In Defendants’ telling, NASCAR and the France family are the founders and guiding lights of a beloved and valuable racing series, who have fairly negotiated mutually beneficial “Charter Agreements” that reflect reasonable commercial terms between NASCAR and the race teams.

“What is the actual evidence and how does it inform a correct legal conclusion? These questions cannot be determined on motions to dismiss in this action, where Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged one or more plausible antitrust claims against Defendants within the applicable period of limitations.

“Instead, the answers must be found when the parties have a full opportunity to pursue discovery of the relevant facts and then at trial, where the jury will be able to weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of the witnesses (unless the case is resolved sooner by the parties or the Court). Therefore, the Court will DENY the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.”