by Darrell Waltrip

In 1997, I suggested strongly that our sport needed to go to a franchising model. I was a car owner at the time and I was losing my proverbial fanny. I had invested millions of dollars into the team. I mean pretty much everything I had to my name was being put into my race team.

My sponsor was putting in millions a year and I was supplementing that with my own money in an attempt to keep up with the bigger, better-funded teams. Doing the math wasn't hard because it was always there in front of me in bright red ink.

I was faced with the real possibility of putting everything I owned up for auction, like other race teams were forced to do, and pray I might get twenty cents on the dollar in return. That was truly scary. Franchising made sense. I mean, I knew I would have to sell my team, but I didn't want to have to sell it at auction. My feeling was if the team had a stated value and someone wanted to buy it, then I had a real chance of getting something back for my investment. That was my motive for suggesting franchising back then.

Trust me, it didn't go over well. I was told in no uncertain terms by then-NASCAR Chairman Bill France Jr. and others at NASCAR that I could forget franchising. They pointed to what it did to the IndyCar series. Sure, I didn't want that to happen to NASCAR, but on the other hand, I didn't want to have to auction off my race team for pennies on the dollar either. So having an established value would protect owners like myself who had put their heart, soul and every last nickel into the team.

Fast-forward 11 years and now everyone is saying franchising is the only way to save the sport.

But nowadays, franchising would pretty much turn our sport upside down if we tried it today. It almost can't be done. NASCAR knows that and they don't want that to happen. So they have basically created their own little version of franchising with this Top 35 Owners Points rule. Let's face it, if your team is locked into the Top 35 in the standings, then your team has value.

If you want an example, look at Dale Earnhardt Inc. In 2007, they bought Ginn Racing so that their driver, Paul Menard, could get Sterling Marlin's points, which put Menard in the Top 35.

The Top 35 rule works out to be the best of both worlds for NASCAR because we have franchising but it is not official. We have unofficial franchising, which is the way NASCAR likes it most of the time. There is wiggle room and you always have to have some wiggle room in this sport.

If you look at true franchising like the NFL, they have revenue sharing. The players even have their own union. But that situation just wouldn't work in our sport. Our sport is controlled by the France family and I just don't see them giving up control.

Tough road ahead

When people say the sport can be saved with some form of franchising, I quickly point out that we do have some form of franchising.

Still, maybe there is a model that could make franchising work in NASCAR down the road, but these guys need help immediately. No matter how you look at it, the 2009 season is going to be tough for these teams economically. Everyone can throw their hands in the air and whine about gloom and doom all day long.

Sure, it's going to be tough, but let's figure out a way to ease the pain in the short term for everyone. It can be done. It's done with leadership. We have to look internally. The teams have overspent, overbuilt and over-hired. The "one-upsmanship" and the "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality have driven teams to the point of extinction.

So the teams have to look at what the teams can do to help out. NASCAR has to look at what NASCAR can do to help out. They may seem insignificant to you and me, but there are things that could be done that would be significant to the teams, like quit charging for hard cards, entry fees, inspection fees — those are just three small areas that can really add up because they are expensive items.

What about tire management? We need a better handle on tire management and related costs. If NASCAR was like the NFL and ran the series like the league, then they would dictate to the teams how to spend their money.

But NASCAR prefers the situation they have now because it gives them wiggle room. Car owners are independent contractors to NASCAR. NASCAR can make and enforce rules, but they can't go look at your books.

Folks also say we need a salary cap. That's something the owners have to come together on, not NASCAR. It's the owners who have to say they aren't going to pay the drivers $10 million a year anymore. Remember, the owners control everything on a team. They own the cars, they negotiate with the sponsors and they negotiate with NASCAR. It's the owners that have the power, not the drivers.

So if the owners were to come together and agree to a salary cap and more importantly, stick to it, then there could be some significant changes. NASCAR can't be all things to all people even though they try to be. It's never worked out that way before and I doubt it will now.

The only thing I have seen them do in the short term is ban testing at some racetracks. But I have to be honest, that still makes no sense to me at all. If you are going to ban testing, why wouldn't you ban it at all racetracks? There's that little wiggle room that always seems to be there in everything they do. Things have got to be more black and white than that. I am talking about no testing, period. I mean come on, if you are going to let them test at some racetracks, you might as well let them test at all the tracks.

It's just something I have never understood. It's like they made a half-rule and just never made a whole rule. With the way things are in the economy right now, we need people to stand up and make strong rules and enforce them. It has to be in the best interest of everybody in the sport.

That's what we need right now.