Although more attention is now being paid to legal proceedings going on in a Texas courtroom between a TMS shareholder and NASCAR than a couple month ago, it is my opinion that, if the plaintiff prevails in his suit, we may be seeing "The Demise of NASCAR As We Know It" unless the France family, NASCAR and ISC take some quick action.

On September 3rd I wrote a column entitled Speculation…Donald Trump, The Meadowlands, ISC and NASCAR…A Marriage Made in Heaven that speculated that there was a very good possibility that the partnership of ISC and Donald Trump had a very good chance of being granted the authority to build and operate a track at the Meadowlands complex and that, if successful, ISC would probably use one of the NASCAR dates from either Rockingham or Darlington for a Meadowlands race.  It was a potential partnership that I believed had merit and one I supported then as well as now.

The gist of the article was that if ISC and Trump did indeed win the bidding and build the track, they would, most likely, use one of the Rockingham race dates for the new track.  I went further on to speculate that there was probably nothing Bruton Smith and his Speedway Motorsports, Inc. (SMI) could do about ISC trading race dates even though one SMI shareholder, Francis Ferko, was currently in litigation in Federal Court with NASCAR and ISC over NASCAR's failure to grant Texas Motor Speedway (TMS) a 2nd NASCAR race date.

At that time I took the stance that I thought the suit would fail since NASCAR could defend itself but pointing out that it was Mr. Smith who set the precedent of trading race dates when he and the Bahre family (NHIS) first bought, then closed down, North Wilkesboro Speedway and then transferred one of North Wilkesboro's two dates to Smith's TMS and the other to Barhes' New Hampshire International Speedway (NHIS).  I took the approach that "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander."

As background, I also went into a few details of the suit filed in a U.S. District Court in Sherman, TX however, there was one glaring detail that I missed that may end up being vastly more important than just obtaining a 2nd race date for TMS.  In addition to claiming that NASCAR promised TMS a 2nd race date the suit also alleges that ISC and NASCAR engaged monopolistic practices in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890.  That is serious, very serious if the defendants (NASCAR & ISC) are found to have engaged in such practices.

On Friday NASCAR went on the offensive and, to say the least, it's going to get nasty, especially since NASCAR alleges that SMI put the stockholder up to the legal action.  Anybody who has been around NASCAR for any length of time knows that there has been "bad blood" between the France family and Bruton Smith (SMI) for many years however, until this suit popped up, it has been in both parties financial interest to try and brush aside their differences.  That may change with the current legal proceedings and "the war of words" is liable to open up a long festering wound (see: Winston-Salem Journals Mike Mulhern's: Lawsuit Over Second Race for Texas Track Turns Ugly) and the results may shake the very foundation of NASCAR as we know it today unless quick action is taken.

Back in early September when I was researching my article, I only found a couple articles concerning the legal proceedings in Texas and one of those was local coverage out of Fort Worth.  That changed Friday.  By Sunday morning, I had read 14 articles (still not one out of NASCAR.com) on the subject and I am sure there will be a lot more publicity in the coming days and weeks and the longer it goes on, the uglier it will get.  Very frankly, "the cat's out of the bag" and that is not good for the France family, NASCAR and ISC.  All the additional mud slinging publicity could do is raise unneeded attention from Washington.

I don't think there is one person familiar with NASCAR who would not agree that the France family holds a monopoly over the sport and that they rule the sport with an iron hand. They own NASCAR, the MRN radio network, and Americrown (caterers & merchandise) outright and also own controlling interest in International Speedway Corp (ISC) which owns or operates 13 of the current NASCAR tracks that stage 50% of the current Winston Cup races.  That is the way it is and, for the most part, everyone involved in NASCAR accepts that control since it's in their best financial interests to keep it that way and not make waves.  Let's face it, the France family has been the major reason NASCAR is where it is today and, next to the NFL, NASCAR is the 2nd most popular sport in America today however, that popularity has a two-edged sword.  The more popular you become, the more you become the center of attention and have to walk around with a big bulls-eye on your back.

Although NASCAR gave TMS the original race date several years ago they have probably, with regards to the monopolistic practices allegations, hurt their current defense given actions taken by NASCAR over the past several years.  Over the past three years, NASCAR has awarded Winston Cup races to three new tracks, Homestead, Kansas City and Chicago.  Conveniently enough, all three of those tracks are facilities in which ISC owns a controlling interest.  Additionally, over that period of time NASCAR has denied a race date to the new Kentucky track and a 2nd TMS race date.  Surprise...ISC does not own or control either of those two facilities.  I'm not a judge, jury or a lawyer but those decisions, at least on the surface, have a "slight smell" of prejudicial treatment even though NASCAR was able to open up entirely new metropolitan markets.

Popular or not, the future of NASCAR and the influence of the France family may be radically changed if the Federal Court rules with the plaintiff's allegations of monopolistic practices.  If the Court issued such a decision, the Justice Department would become involved and they would probably require the France family to divest itself totally of all day to day control and financial interest in NASCAR.  In other words, NASCAR (as a governing body) would become truly independent of the France family and ISC.

All of this requires a lot of speculation and I have not made up my mind if requiring the France family to divest itself of its interest in NASCAR would be a good thing for the governing body since they started it and have done a pretty darn good job of making it what it is today.  All I would hope is that if the court ruled requiring the France family divest its interests in NASCAR, NASCAR would not end up being controlled by the track owners which is similar to the way the NFL, the NBA and Major League governing bodies are run.   Their screw-ups are one of the major reasons NASCAR has become so popular, but that's another story.

Given the possible consequences that could come out of the current suit, it is my sincere belief that it is in the France's, NASCAR's, ISC's, Bruton Smith's and SMI's best interests to bury their past differences and settle this litigation as soon as possible.

The settlement that makes the most sense to me (as an independent observer) would be one that would have NASCAR give TMS the 2nd race date even if ISC was forced to give up one of their Rockingham or Darlington dates.  In return, SMI would support ISC's bid and the development of the New York area track. The losers with such an agreement would be the Rockingham and Darlington tracks which would probably lose one race date annually and the new Kentucky facility which would still be left out in the cold with no NASCAR Winston Cup dates...left only the reputation as this country's best "test" track.

Although I do not believe any of the parties would be totally happy with this agreement, a settlement of this sort would be a heck of a lot better than a lot of negative publicity.  Most importantly, a settlement would remove any chance that a negative court ruling against NASCAR and ISC would get Washington and the Justice Department involved…neither side needs or deserves that grief.