A proposed class-action lawsuit filed against the NCAA is challenging the long-standing prohibition against athletic scholarships in Division III athletics, arguing that the restriction illegally fixes the price of student-athlete labor at zero.
The complaint, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, targets NCAA Division III Bylaw 15.01.3. The rule explicitly prohibits member institutions from awarding financial aid based on athletic leadership, ability, participation, or performance. Plaintiffs contend that this mandate violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act by suppressing compensation across the NCAA’s largest division, which encompasses more than 400 schools and serves between 175,000 and 210,000 student-athletes each academic year.
The named plaintiffs include Connor Printz, who played basketball at Claremont McKenna College from 2020 to 2024; Chris Jennings, a swimmer and lacrosse player at the University of Lynchburg from 2019 to 2023; and Jackson Hale, a senior defensive back and team captain at Pacific Lutheran University. According to the court filing, Printz left his team early in the 2023-24 season to focus on his social-media business after borrowing heavily to cover tuition, fees, room, and board at a college where published undergraduate costs totaled $79,427 in the 2022-23 academic year. The filing notes that Printz earned approximately $50,000 from endorsement deals with brands such as Reebok and Clif Bar while enrolled, but argued that a meaningful partial scholarship would have allowed him to complete his senior basketball season. Jennings, an All-ODAC honoree who received no athletic aid, worked on campus to fund graduate classes before later receiving tuition assistance as a graduate assistant coach.
The legal challenge arrives amid a broader wave of antitrust scrutiny and litigation targeting collegiate athletics governance, bolstered by the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in NCAA v. Alston and the recent settlement that dismantled scholarship caps in Division I. A prior legal challenge, Rock v. NCAA, was dismissed in 2013 by a federal court in Indiana on grounds that the restriction fostered competition.
College sports experts express varied views on the potential impact of the current litigation. Steven Rackley, a professor at Rice University and former athletic director at both Division II and Division III institutions, questioned whether schools possess the financial resources to fund athletic scholarships if the ban is struck down. Many Division III institutions are tuition-dependent and maintain broad sports offerings primarily to attract general student enrollment, he noted. Rackley also suggested that the legal timing exploits perceived NCAA vulnerability following recent losses over name, image, and likeness rules and revenue-sharing mandates.
Dave Ridpath, a sports business professor at Ohio University, observed that the plaintiffs are challenging the prohibition itself rather than demanding that schools be mandated to offer athletic aid. However, Ridpath expressed skepticism that a formal lifting of the ban would radically alter campus economics, asserting that financial support already reaches certain Division III athletes under alternative classifications to boost enrollment at selective institutions. The NCAA has defended the scholarship ban as a core principle intended to prevent athletic participation from being financially rewarded in the same manner as academic achievement. The association did not respond to requests for comment regarding the litigation.
