How many of us, when we were growing up, had a "friend" like Johnny? You know, the kid with all the latest toys who would always remind you that if you were going to play with his stuff, you had to play by his rules.

If not, he'd take his football or GI Joe and march home, secure in the knowledge that he just ruined the experience for the rest of us.

It's a childhood cliche which often played out among adolescents. But it's also a scenario which isn't foreign to stock car fans? Many wonder how NASCAR can serve as stock car racing's governing body, yet also have a variety of other businesses under its corporate umbrella that would be considered a conflict of interest in other major sports?

For example, how can NASCAR run the sport, yet also ride herd over several accompanying businesses, most notably International Speedway Corporation? How can the official rulemaking body also control over 12 tracks that the Winston Cup Series visits 18 times each season -- half of the circuit's 36-race schedule? Most importantly, how can NASCAR remain impartial when it not only owns the sanctioning body but also half the playing fields?

Every other major sport -- NFL, NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball -- has very strict and implicit rules forbidding league officials or the league itself from having an active interest in one of its franchisees, be it a team or team-related business. Granted, there are instances where the league runs the team, as is currently the case with MLB overseeing the Montreal Expos, but that's normally a situation where the league is financially bailing out a failing organization with an eye on eventually selling it as soon as it can find a buyer.

The only major sport where we see governing bodies able to be both the rules makers as well as participants in the sport -- be it either as track owners or operators of other businesses -- is in motorsports. NASCAR does it, as well as the NHRA, CART, IRL and even Formula One.

"Auto racing has had different dynamics than the other sports," said NASCAR Chief Operating Officer George Pyne. "You have to keep in mind that NASCAR and other forms of auto racing really were started by a group of independent businessmen that wanted to bring some credibility and organization to the sport they loved.

"In the case of NASCAR, one of the key things that's been instrumental to the growth the sport has had is world-class facilities where our teams can showcase the best race car drivers in the world. We always felt it was important for the sport to grow, the teams to prosper and the fans to get a good product, that having healthy and viable track operators to showcase the races you sanction was important.

"But without those tracks to showcase the ability of the best drivers in the world, NASCAR and other forms of racing would still probably be run on dirt tracks. The other thing that the other sports benefit from, because other people see value in it, they're all being underwritten by taxpayer dollars. They have state and local governments that fund with taxpayer money the construction of world-class facilities. NASCAR and auto racing have not had this luxury and benefit that other sports have. Therefore, independent businessmen have had to find creative ways to build and grow the sport, and that's what happened."

Pyne acknowledges NASCAR's ownership of ISC and other periphery businesses that deal with racing -- including hospitality, catering and souvenirs. But he also said NASCAR does not interfere with those divisions, that they're all under the same corporate umbrella but with impartial leadership and autonomy.

"NASCAR does not own race tracks," Pyne said. "ISC is run separately, there are separate management teams, separate strategies, separate boards of directors, run completely separate but both have common ownership.

	Bruton Smith's SMI owns six NASCAR-sanctioned race tracks.

"This is America. (NASCAR founder) Bill France Sr. risked his livelihood and the livelihood of his family to start a business. And I'm sure there are people today that may look at the success of NASCAR and may take some exception to it (the ancillary businesses that are owned under the France family corporate umbrella). But what people need to remember is NASCAR almost went under. Bill France and his family risked everything they had and spent their entire lives, three generations, to help build this sport with some other people.

"All I can say is that in America, if somebody has an idea, they can build it, take risk and you'd like to think that if they do it in an honorable and decent way, which I believe NASCAR has been run, good things happen. When people ask how does it work when you have common ownership but two separately run companies, the answer is they are separate, and if you want to have an arrangement with ISC on a track matter, you're going to have to discuss that with the race track. And if you want to discuss something with NASCAR, you're going to have to discuss it with them.

"NASCAR sanctions and promotes races. ISC runs the race tracks that have NASCAR races, open-wheel races, car shows and other forms of anything with wheels."

Granted, other smaller leagues hold control of some or all of their teams -- we've seen that in professional soccer, women's basketball and minor league football, too -- but the biggest sports governing bodies, other than those in the racing game, make it verboten to share an interest in one of its underlings.

The reason is simple: Perception is nine-tenths of reality. Like the reader who wrote me, if someone perceives a conflict of interest -- even if there is none -- then they still wind up believing there indeed is a reality of a significant conflict ... and that is wrong in their eyes. People now expect organizations to take steps to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

After receiving an e-mail from a reader making this argument, I admit I had to ask myself for a few seconds whether or not I was actually Bruton Smith in disguise. After all, the billionaire owner of ISC's chief rival, Speedway Motorsports Inc., whose six tracks play host to nine events on the Winston Cup circuit -- and which is constantly pursuing NASCAR for additional races -- has brought up the conflict of interest he perceives between NASCAR and ISC many times.

Smith is old school, a purist who believes in free enterprise. That's how he became so wealthy. He earned everything he has. But there's one significant distinction between Smith and his company, and NASCAR and the ISC: Smith doesn't have the power to make, enforce or change the rules. That's why Smith also feels NASCAR should take the high road and be responsible only as a sanctioning body, rather than an owner/operator of multiple tracks and other businesses.

In all fairness, NASCAR has done a good job of trying to separate its role as overseer of the sport from ISC and other businesses. Yet, when it comes to racing at some of its facilities, my perception is that NASCAR is either quick to step in or slow to react, depending on the circumstances. You can't help but wonder if it would be the same way if it didn't hold ownership in those particular tracks.

	“	It's the same way with the France family. NASCAR is their game and ISC venues are their race tracks. If Bruton Smith or other track or team owners or drivers don't like it, they can hit the road. ”

Talladega Superspeedway is a good example. The legendary Alabama track -- at 2.66 miles around, it's the largest on the circuit -- has had a propensity for big multi-car crashes due to the use of restrictor plates, which are used in the name of safety. It's the same situation at Daytona, although the huge wrecks don't seem to happen as often there.

Now, if NASCAR/ISC didn't own Talladega, do you think it would have forced some type of change in the rules -- or completely eliminate restrictor plates entirely --- by now? I do.

Don't get me wrong. I think NASCAR and its officials are doing a good job overseeing the sport. The proof is in the pudding: It's the No. 3 sport in licensed merchandise, 17 of the top-20 televised sporting events last year were NASCAR races and attendance and popularity are at all-time highs. Why fix something that isn't broken, right?

What's more, the France family has built America's favorite racing series from the ground up through years of hard work, perseverance, marketing and a knack for being in the right place at the right time.

But I can't help think back to Johnny. Whenever we'd have a skirmish, he'd grab his toys and head home, smirking while knowing he was the only game in town.

And it's the same way with the France family. NASCAR is their game and ISC venues are their tracks. If Smith or other track or team owners or drivers don't like it, they can hit the road. It's gotten to the point where, if a conflict on or off the track occurs, many of today's drivers have stopped going to the NASCAR trailer to complain for the likelihood their arguments will fall upon deaf ears.

That's where the dangerous precedent is. Even if Bill France Jr., Mike Helton, Brian France and everyone that's either a member of or associated with the family is as spotless as the day they were born, having offshoot divisions such as ISC remaining under the same corporate umbrella still gives many the implied perception that NASCAR can't be a completely impartial sanctioning body.

While NASCAR is a multi-billion dollar conglomerate, it's trying too hard to be too many things to too many people. While the hundreds of millions of dollars that flow into ISC's coffers -- and eventually get filtered down into NASCAR's pockets -- aren't chump change, just the fact that NASCAR both runs the game and the majority of its playing fields is enough to give me pause.

That's why it's time NASCAR the sanctioning body divests itself of NASCAR the track owner (and its publicly-held stock ownership), NASCAR the radio network owner (MRN Radio) and NASCAR the other sideline business owner (such as Americrown Service Corp., which provides catering and concessions).

If all those don't make up a monopoly, from the racing to the hospitality to the souvenir sales, I don't know what does.

The sport needs an organization that is strictly focused on racing, rules, competition and safety, not one that gives the perception that making a buck with its other ventures is just as important as racing itself.

That's my take on things. What's yours, NASCAR fans (or foes)? Do you think NASCAR should divest itself of its outside interests and solely serve as a governing body? Tell us what you think and we'll post some of comments on the site.

Your name:               
Your e-mail address:     
City and state/province: 


Your comment:

Please include full name and city and state if you want your comment to be considered for posting.

Jerry Bonkowski covers NASCAR for ESPN.com. He can be reached at Motorsportwriter@Yahoo.com.