The real reason franchising won't happen in NASCAR (cont'd)

Beyond the natural questions -- how many franchises do you award? What's the franchising fee? Are existing teams grandfathered in? -- there's the natural resistance from NASCAR, which doesn't want to limit who can compete in its sport. Had franchising been in effect, the sanctioning body argues, men like Joe Gibbs might never have had the opportunity to own race teams. Never mind that Gibbs, now that he's part of the sport, is all for franchising. And never mind that directives like the top 35 rule and the impending four-car cap are even more exclusionary than franchising would be.

Ginn downsizes

Joe Nemechek lost his ride and Sterling Marlin was replaced as Ginn Racing shuffles its drivers.

• Complete story, click here

The recent passing of former chairman Bill France Jr., the staunchest opponent of franchising within the sport, have led to whispers that implementation of the ownership system may be on its way in NASCAR. Don't bet on it. What will keep franchising from becoming a reality isn't a desire for open competition. What will keep it from happening is the fact that franchising would alter the power structure within the sport, providing owners with much more leverage than they have now, and diluting the influence of the brass in Daytona Beach.

Look at sports leagues that have franchising, and you'll also find ownership boards and policy groups. You'll find offseason owners' meetings where rules changes are discussed and approved. You'll find that owners who pay millions of dollars for the right to compete also want a degree of authority on how their sport is run, authority that NASCAR is unlikely to give them. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

We've seen owners take control of a racing series before, and the disastrous financial and competitive consequences. Championship Auto Racing Teams, the open-wheel series now known as Champ Car, had noble beginnings. Owners in the U.S Auto Club didn't like the size of purses or the scope of promotion, and wanted to take control of their series. For a little while, it worked. But car owners, it was discovered, often have divergent agendas. Mismanagement and the 1996 formation of the Indy Racing League took their toll, and today Champ Car is but a blip on the American motorsports radar screen.

For whatever reason, the two most successful auto racing circuits on the planet -- NASCAR and Formula One -- are run similarly, with a single, strong figure making all the decisions at the top. They don't allow a lot of room for compromise. Sometimes, they come across as unfair. But both series have been printing money for decades, under the theory that what's good for the sport as a whole is good for everybody in it. For teams that win, the system works. For teams that don't, existence can be a financial struggle seemingly without end.

So they look for partners and alliances and people who can help pay the bills. That's the new reality in NASCAR, a sport with no safety net, where the only protection is what you make for yourself.

The opinions expressed are solely those of the writer.