Tennis Players' NCAA Prize Money Case Certified as Class Action

Yahoo

3 days ago

A federal judge in North Carolina this week certified a class action lawsuit against the NCAA over rules that 'severely limit' the amount of prize money current and prospective college tennis players can accept without forfeiting their D-I eligibility.
Chief U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Eagles ruled that UNC tennis player Reese Brantmeier—the 2025 ACC Player of the Year—and former University of Texas tennis player Maya Joint have satisfied the requirements under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to represent two classes.
More from Sportico.com
NCAA Trying to Block 24-Year-Old Rutgers Transfer From Playing
UNLV Lineman Denied Bid for Fifth Season in Antitrust Decision
Trump Executive Order on College Sports Unlikely to Move the Needle
The first class demands NCAA rule changes (injunctive relief) and represents the approximately 12,000 students who have either competed in D-I tennis since March 19, 2020, or who were deemed ineligible to compete due to prize money rules. The second class is much smaller—court filings indicate somewhere between 21 and about 60 people—and demands monetary damages on account of voluntarily forfeiting prize money earned in a tennis tournament to comply with NCAA rules.
The case takes aim at the NCAA prohibiting tennis players from accepting more than $10,000 per calendar year in prize money prior to attending college, with allowances for additional prize money not exceeding actual and necessary expenses. Athletes must submit information to the NCAA eligibility center about prize money they have accepted.
Brantmeier has earned $123,100 in prize money over her career, much of it before she started college in 2022. The 20-year-old Wisconsin native competed in junior tournaments at the U.S. Open, Wimbledon and the French Open and was the No. 1 player from the high school class of 2022. Brantmeier has had to forfeit most of her prize money to preserve her NCAA eligibility.
Joint similarly earned tens of thousands of dollars prior to attending Texas and had to forfeit most of it. Joint left UT after her first semester and is now a pro tennis player. The 19-year-old Australian is currently ranked 45thin the world by the WTA. Joint, Eagles wrote, would still like to compete in D-I but is no longer eligible under NCAA rules after taking prize money.
The gist of the legal argument is that the NCAA and its member schools and conferences have unlawfully agreed to restrain earning opportunities for tennis players. Brantmeier and Joint contend prize money rules amount to price fixing and reflect a group boycott of players who would otherwise play D-I tennis but can't due to prize money rules. A nationwide market of colleges competing for the labor of D-I tennis players is allegedly harmed as a result of prize money rules.
Prize money caps have arguably become harder to justify in a more commercialized college sports world. College athletes can now earn unlimited amounts through NIL deals, and with the House settlement, some D-I athletes will also receive revenue shares from their schools.
Brantmeier sued the NCAA in March 2024 in a North Carolina federal court on behalf of herself and other D-I athletes in individual sports. That category includes tennis, golf, swimming, track and field, wrestling, gymnastics, skiing, fencing, women's bowling, indoor and outdoor cross country, women's triathlon, women's equestrian, rifle and skiing.
However, in October 2024, Eagles denied Brantmeier a preliminary injunction. The judge reasoned that the 'evidence of harm to competition from the prize money rules' was 'remarkably thin.' The judge also questioned whether prize money rules deter enough athletes from competing in some D-I individual sports to meaningfully impact the kind of market that antitrust law would protect. Brantmeier filed an amended complaint that limited the claims to tennis players and added Joint as a plaintiff.
Eagles certifying Brantmeier & Joint v. NCAA as a class action should not be confused with her opining that the case is likely to succeed on the merits. The judge has not (yet) made that determination, and the case will take time to play out in the pretrial process. However, class certification makes it a potentially more costly and complicated case for the NCAA to resolve since it represents far more people. The NCAA declined to comment to Sportico on Eagles' ruling
Brantmeier and Joint are represented by Peggy J. Wedgworth and other attorneys from Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, and Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler.
Best of Sportico.com
College Athletes as Employees: Answering 25 Key Questions