2008 sits in the era of corporate NASCAR. Multi-million dollar teams, huge purses at races, well (over?) paid drivers with dozens of sponsor endorsements. But the same is also true of the tracks that they race on.

NASCAR's premier series are pretty much dominated by two track owning companies. The Francs family's International Speedway Co and Speedway Motorsports Inc., with a handful of tracks, Dover, Pocono etc independently owned.

These two large companies, and tracks in general, sporadically become the headlines in NASCAR - the 'I'll close Lowe's unless I can big a drap strip' fiasco, and this week due to SMI's acquisition of the much maligned Kentucky Speedway. It's this purchase that has threatened to show how much power the track owners now have in NASCAR. Having brought Kentucky the natural follow-up is to make it worthwhile, or in the NASCAR world - get a Sprint Cup race there. I'm not going to begrudge the fact that Kentucky (or other tracks) deserve more/a NASCAR race, but it's how they go about doing it that seems to be the problem.

As soon as the purchase was announced, with it's obvious intention, comments from the current owners of Pocono appeared saying it wasn't for sale. Now with all eyes on Dover, as the track hosts its first race of the year, it being another independent track is now slated for purchase in some reporter's eyes. This is not about whether you think that these two tracks deserve the two dates they currently have (although in my opinion the answer is 'no' and 'yes'). If SMI want a race at Kentucky, then move a date from one of the other tracks they already own, preferably California or Texas. But they won't. That's the point.

As businesses they will always choose what's best for them, not for the sport they are linked to. At California attendences have been low and races haven't exactly set the world on fire. A majority of fans would agree that if a track doesn't need 2 races California is one of them, but at the moment it apparently remains marketable so no move.

But is it really that bad? Here I have a feeling is an issue where old-school fans and new-comers will be divided on those lines. California and the west coast is home to a big market that could be tappen by NASCAR - there are enough Californian NASCAR drivers now to provide a pretty big pull. To continue to grow NASCAR needs a presence in the area. But at what expense. History? Tradition? Pretty much every year a cry goes up from traditionalists after Daytona about the demise of Rockingham. Every so often a wimper is heard of North Wilkesboro. People complain that they have closed (or at least lost dates) and racing moved away from NASCAR's traditional home.

Good. NASCAR isn't just a southern, or indeed American sport anymore. Too many tracks in one area is unworkable, America is a big country and NASCAR needs to fill all of it, not just one corner. It's either expansion or death.

What should decide the home of NASCAR's races? Fans or Lawyers? Should track owning companies just be able to up and move dates (albeit with NASCAR's approval) from one track to another? Should independent tracks consistently be threatened with purchase and closure? Is there too much Track Power?