CHARLOTTE, N.C. — The two teams suing NASCAR over an antitrust complaint were granted a preliminary injunction Wednesday that allows them to compete as chartered teams in the 2025 season.

23XI Racing, the team owned by NBA Hall of Famer Michael Jordan and three-time Daytona 500 winner Denny Hamlin, and Front Row Motorsports refused in September to sign take-it-or-leave it revenue sharing offers made by NASCAR just 48 hours before the start of the playoffs.

A charter is essentially a franchise and guarantees prize money, a spot in the field each week, and other protections.

The teams had filed an antitrust suit alleging NASCAR is “monopolistic bullies” and had been denied in federal court in November a request to be recognized as “chartered” teams as the suit continues.

23XI and Front Row can now sign the charter agreements and still pursue the lawsuit. They also each were granted permission to purchase additional charters from Stewart Haas Racing, which closed its four-team shop at the end of the 2024 season, and NASCAR must approve the transfers to those teams.

” YESSSSSSS!!!!!!!” Hamlin wrote on social media.

It was needed win for 23XI. Tyler Reddick, who finished fourth in the 2024 Cup standings, had an opt-out clause in his contract that would have gone into effect Wednesday and made him a free agent if the team did not have a charter for next season.

Jordan had said he took the fight to court on behalf of all teams competing in the top motorsports series in the United States. NASCAR had argued that the two teams simply do not like the terms of the final charter agreement and asked for the lawsuit be dismissed.

Both Front Row and 23XI want to expand from two full-time cars to three, and have agreements with SHR to purchase one charter each. SHR is now Haas Factory and has a charter for one car in 2025.

Until Wednesday’s injunction, 23XI and Front Row would have been forced to compete next season as “open” teams that don’t have the same protections or financial gains that come from holding a charter.

The teams contend they must be chartered under some of their contractual agreements with current sponsors and drivers, and competing next year as open teams will cause significant losses.

Earlier this month, the suit was transferred to a different judge than the one who heard the first round of arguments and ruled against the two teams in their request for a temporary injunction to be recognized in 2025 as chartered teams as the case proceeds.

“Here, the public interest strongly favors entry of a limited preliminary injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs during the 2025 NASCAR race season, both to give fans of stock car racing the opportunity to watch (and root for and against) the full slate of teams and to allow Plaintiffs’ antitrust legal challenges to be considered,” Judge Kenneth D. Bell wrote.

Front Row is owned by businessman Bob Jenkins, while 23XI is owned by Jordan, Hamlin and longtime Jordan adviser Curtis Polk.

Jenkins had told The Associated Press in October that the two teams stood to miss out on $45 million in combined revenue if they competed as un-chartered teams. But he was willing to do so for Front Row because he believed the case against NASCAR was winnable.

NASCAR had been operating with 36 chartered teams and four open spots since the charter agreement began in 2016.

NASCAR can appeal the ruling.

“The availability of multiple sports in the United States says nothing about NASCAR’s control of a major one of them in the same way that the availability of professional basketball and football did not lead to a finding that the NCAA was not a monopolist,” the judge ruled.

Former New Mexico running back Eli Sanders has committed to USC, he told ESPN’s Pete Thamel.

Sanders, who has one year of eligibility remaining and 1,766 career rushing yards, also announced his decision on social media.

The Trojans will be Sanders’ third stop during his college football career after he transferred to the Lobos from Iowa State last year.

Following a three-year stint in Ames during which he totaled 703 rushing yards and four touchdowns, Sanders slotted into the starting back role at New Mexico last season and had his best year yet.

The Oceanside, California, native rushed for 1,063 yards on 147 carries (7.2 yards per rush) and added nine touchdowns as well as 134 receiving yards.

Sanders is set to play a major role in USC’s backfield after stalwart Woody Marks (1,133 yards and nine touchdowns) declared for the NFL draft. Promising freshman back Quinten Joyner (478 yards, three touchdowns) also entered the transfer portal.

Following a 6-6 season, USC has had 18 players enter the transfer portal since it opened on Dec. 9.

The Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners voted 5-2 in favor of funding $312.5 million worth of bonds Tuesday night. What sounds like a simple procedural move was far from it. Over the past six weeks, the $1.3 billion stadium deal for the Tampa Bay Rays — celebrated in July by all parties as a watershed moment for a franchise that had spent nearly two decades trying to build a new ballpark — has found itself in jeopardy. And it all started Oct. 29.

Less than three weeks after Hurricane Milton tore through the roof of Tropicana Field and caused tens of billions of dollars more in damage on Oct. 10, the Pinellas commission convened to approve the bonds needed for the new stadium. What the Rays believed would be a rubber stamp turned into a mess when the commission postponed the vote. While commissioners said the delay stemmed from wanting to know where the Rays would play in 2025 (in mid-November they would name George M. Steinbrenner Field, the New York Yankees‘ minor league stadium outside of Pinellas County in Tampa, as their new temporary home), the team felt betrayed.

Thus began a back-and-forth with both sides casting blame on the other. The delay in the bonds, the Rays said, would delay opening the stadium until 2029, instead of 2028 as planned. The extra construction costs, the team said, would be excessive. One of the county commissioners, Chris Latvala, told the Tampa Bay Times that the Rays put the cost at $200 million. To complete the project, the Rays said, they would need additional financial assistance from their partners in the project, Pinellas County and the city of St. Petersburg, where the new stadium would reside, on the same site as the Trop but with a multibillion-dollar development surrounding.

Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred traveled to Florida last week in an attempt to shore up the growing divide among the parties. Latvala, who previously had voted no on the deal, flipped to a yes on Tuesday night, he told the Times, because of Manfred’s pledge for the Rays to remain in Tampa Bay. Latvala went on to criticize Rays owner Stuart Sternberg, saying: “I hope our vote today helps set the wheels in motion for a new owner and a new era of the Tampa Bay Rays.”

Another commissioner, Rene Flowers, framed the vote as a call for the Rays to show their commitment as well. The team can terminate the agreement at any time. With the county’s money pledged, as well as $287.5 million from St. Petersburg in a 4-3 city council vote, Flowers told the Times: “All eyes will now be watching to assure that the Rays uphold their part of this deal.”

Where does it go from here? Here’s everything you need to know about where the project stands, what the future of Tropicana Field looks like and whether the Rays could find another home.

What stands between the Rays and getting a new ballpark in St. Petersburg?

Besides politics and money? Oh, not much.

Certainly the messy beginning of the partnership does not portend better relations going forward. But if the sides can find agreement on a number of issues — namely the “funding gap” the Rays say the commission caused by the delay and how the Trop fits into the future — a new stadium remains possible. St. Petersburg Mayor Ken Welch stands firmly behind the project, but Flowers said Tuesday she was against the commission giving any more money.

After Tuesday night’s vote, Rays president Matt Silverman issued a statement saying: “It was unsurprising to see the Commissioners acknowledge how important the Tampa Bay Rays and our stadium development agreement are to this community and its citizens. As we have made clear, the County’s delay has caused the ballpark’s completion to slide into 2029. As a result, the cost of the project has increased significantly, and we cannot absorb this increase alone. When the County and City wish to engage, we remain ready to solve this funding gap together.”

What is the timeline for deciding whether a new stadium will happen?

In order for the bonds to be sold, the Rays must meet a number of conditions. At the forefront is the team showing it has the money to cover its obligation on stadium costs. The team has until March 31, 2025, to satisfy the conditions. MLB is expected to give the team a $100 million loan, and the Rays have expressed confidence they have the financing for the remainder of the money.

What is the status of Tropicana Field, and will the Rays ever play there again?

Eighteen of the 24 fiberglass panels on the stadium’s roof ripped off during Hurricane Milton. The stadium, long ridiculed for being outdated and far too empty for a franchise as good as the Rays, transformed overnight into the lasting image of the damage the storm wrought.

St. Petersburg is obligated to repair the stadium. The city estimated it can do so in time for the 2026 season for $55.7 million. On Wednesday, the city council pledged $1.4 million for rebuilding plans.

The Rays’ position is that the Trop would not be ready until the last year of their lease in 2027 — that the damage done to the stadium, beyond the roof, is too exceptional. Part of the calculus going forward is whether the parties continue with rebuilding the Trop or consider taking the money pledged toward its repair and offer it to help bridge the funding gap.

If the proposed stadium isn’t opening until 2029, could the Rays just play at Steinbrenner Field until then?

Highly unlikely. The Rays are treating Steinbrenner as a stopover, not unlike how the Athletics are using another minor league stadium, Sutter Health Park, to set up shop before their planned move to Las Vegas in 2028.

It’s not just the weather concerns — the combination of extreme heat and rain in the summer that, accordingly, have the Rays on the road for 35 of 48 games between July 4 and the end of August. Deposing a minor league affiliate of an organization in the same division is simply something that’s not likely to be agreed upon for an extended period of time.

Where would the Rays play, then?

Good question. Would MLB give them permission to moonlight in a potential expansion city? Could they find somewhere to play in Pinellas County for three more years? Is Omaha, which the Wall Street Journal reported could host the Rays, really a possibility? It’s all unknown. Just as important as the next few years is what comes after that. The goal is for the Rays to know where they’re going to be in 2028 and 2029 as early as 2026. Though as the A’s showed this year, those sorts of timelines tend to be more fluid than the “deadlines” suggest.

Let’s say somewhere along the way, the St. Petersburg stadium falls through. Would Tampa be a viable option?

As it stands, no. The Rays have explored stadium options in Hillsborough County in the past, only for the efforts to fail.

Hillsborough voters renewed a half-cent sales tax in November, but the expectation is that money for the stadium will be earmarked for the NFL’s Buccaneers, whose lease at Raymond James Stadium runs out in 2028.

If, for some reason, Pinellas County is off the table, perhaps Hillsborough and the city of Tampa would take a different tack with the Rays. For now, though, as long as the stadium deal remains in place, the team is not permitted to engage with other municipalities. It’s a leverage point that theoretically pushes the Rays toward a deal, because without the ability to seek options outside of Pinellas, terminating the agreement would come with additional risk.

In that case, would Sternberg seek to relocate the team?

He did tell the Times in mid-November that relocation “is not an unlikely conclusion.” Whether Sternberg would sell the Rays to someone pledging to keep the team in the Tampa Bay area, continue owning the team if it moved or sell it to a new owner who plans to relocate all remains unknown.

Would MLB owners let them relocate?

Maybe. The Rays’ attempts to build a new stadium have lasted 17 years. A similar failure to secure a stadium in Oakland led to MLB greenlighting the move of the A’s to Las Vegas. Owners view the Tampa Bay market favorably, so the preference is for an MLB team to remain there — something reinforced by Manfred’s efforts.

At least 23 of the league’s 30 owners need to vote in favor of a potential move.

What would be the most likely destinations if the Rays do move?

The usual suspects: Nashville, Tennessee; Salt Lake City; Charlotte, North Carolina; Portland, Oregon; Austin, Texas; and Raleigh, North Carolina. Don’t forget Montreal. In 2019, the Rays received permission from MLB to explore splitting its home games between the Tampa Bay area and Montreal. In January 2022, the MLB executive council killed the proposed plan.

How would the Rays moving impact MLB’s future expansion timeline?

They’re inextricably tied. Manfred’s commitment to keeping baseball in the Tampa Bay area would either entail keeping the Rays in town now or approving their move to a new city and offering an expansion franchise when baseball decides to go from 30 to 32 teams.

The league has not taken any formal steps to expand. Manfred has long said that he wants the A’s and Rays’ stadium issues taken care of before the league moves to expand. Considering how quickly what looked like the Rays’ triumph of a stadium deal turned imperiled, the desire for clarity looks more and more warranted.