The National Collegiate Athletic Association is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit from current and former Division III athletes who contend that its prohibition on athletic scholarships violates federal antitrust law, potentially threatening a longstanding feature of the organization’s largest competitive division.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in California, alleges that the NCAA unlawfully restricts competition among Division III colleges by preventing them from offering financial assistance based on athletic performance or participation, according to Reuters reporting published October 26.
The legal challenge comes as the NCAA continues to confront scrutiny of its compensation rules following court decisions that have reshaped the financial relationship between universities and student-athletes.
Unlike Division I and Division II institutions, Division III colleges cannot award scholarships based on athletic ability. Students may receive academic scholarships and need-based financial assistance, but athletic participation cannot determine those awards, according to the NCAA’s published policies.
The plaintiffs argue that the restriction effectively prevents hundreds of colleges from competing to recruit athletes through scholarship offers, limiting financial opportunities that would otherwise be available.
The case, Connor Printz et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs include current and former Division III competitors seeking to challenge the association’s restrictions on athletic financial aid, Reuters reported.
According to additional reporting by Sportico, summarized by Yahoo Sports, the plaintiffs include Connor Printz, a former basketball player at Claremont McKenna College; Chris Jennings, who competed in swimming and lacrosse at the University of Lynchburg; and Jackson Hale, a football player at Pacific Lutheran University.
The athletes are seeking an injunction preventing the NCAA from enforcing the scholarship prohibition, as well as monetary damages for eligible athletes who competed in Division III beginning in October 2022, according to the published account of the complaint.
The lawsuit could carry substantial financial implications if a court allows the case to proceed as a class action and ultimately finds that the scholarship restrictions violate antitrust law. No such determination has been made.
Related: Bipartisan NCAA Bill Would Limit Antitrust Challenges to College Sports Rules
The dispute adds to a growing body of litigation challenging NCAA regulations that limit the financial benefits available to college athletes.
A central legal precedent is the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in NCAA v. Alston, which subjected certain NCAA restrictions on education-related benefits to antitrust scrutiny.
Related: Bipartisan NCAA Bill Would Limit Antitrust Challenges to College Sports Rules
The Division III plaintiffs are relying in part on that decision to argue that agreements among competing colleges to prohibit athletic scholarships should be evaluated under federal competition law, according to the reporting on the complaint.
The case also faces potential legal obstacles.
We’d love to be your preferred source for news.
Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!
In April 2026, a federal appeals court upheld the Ivy League’s prohibition on athletic scholarships, ruling that the athletes challenging the policy had failed to adequately define the relevant competitive market. That decision highlights the burden plaintiffs face when alleging that restrictions on athletic financial assistance unlawfully suppress competition.
Division III, however, encompasses more than 400 institutions, making the scope of the challenged NCAA-wide policy considerably broader than the Ivy League’s conference-level restriction, according to the lawsuit reporting.
Financial Stakes for Colleges and Athletes
The outcome could affect how Division III institutions recruit athletes and structure financial aid.
The division has historically emphasized an educational model in which athletic participation is integrated into the broader college experience rather than supported through athletic scholarships. The NCAA says students can still qualify for institutional assistance based on academic achievement or financial need.
A ruling against the scholarship prohibition could give participating institutions greater flexibility to offer athletic financial assistance, although it would not necessarily require colleges to provide scholarships.
For athletes, the potential implications extend beyond future recruiting opportunities. The plaintiffs are seeking damages for alleged financial losses stemming from the restrictions, according to the lawsuit reporting.
The case could also raise questions about how smaller college athletic programs would respond to a more competitive scholarship environment, particularly at institutions operating with limited athletic budgets.
Reuters identified Andrew Purdy of Brown Neri Smith & Khan, Michael Goldberg of Arrowblue, Christine Brown of Christine Brown Sports Law and Matt Strauser of Burns Charest as attorneys representing the plaintiffs.
At the time of Reuters’ October 26 report, no attorneys had appeared on behalf of the NCAA in the case.
The litigation remains at an early stage, and the allegations have not been established in court.
Source: Reuters
Add as Preferred Source