Tennis players’ NCAA prize money case approved as class action

A recent development in North Carolina has seen a federal judge certify a class action lawsuit against the NCAA, specifically targeting rules that severely restrict the amount of prize money that college tennis players can accept without risking their Division I eligibility. This ruling comes after UNC tennis player Reese Brantmeier and former University of Texas tennis player Maya Joint were determined to meet the criteria to represent two classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The first class, which consists of approximately 12,000 students who have either competed in Division I tennis since March 19, 2020, or have been deemed ineligible due to prize money rules, is seeking injunctive relief to push for changes in NCAA regulations. The second class, with a smaller number of individuals ranging from 21 to about 60, is pursuing monetary damages for forfeiting prize money earned in tennis tournaments to adhere to NCAA guidelines.

At the heart of the lawsuit is the NCAA’s restriction on tennis players accepting more than $10,000 per calendar year in prize money before starting college, with additional allowances for necessary expenses. Brantmeier, a standout player with $123,100 in career earnings, had to give up most of her winnings to maintain NCAA eligibility, while Joint, who left UT to pursue professional tennis, faced a similar situation.

The argument put forth by Brantmeier and Joint is centered around the claim that the NCAA, along with member schools and conferences, have engaged in illegal agreements that limit opportunities for tennis players to earn. They argue that prize money rules constitute price fixing and a boycott against players who could potentially play Division I but are barred due to these regulations, ultimately harming the competitive market of colleges vying for the talent of D-I tennis athletes.

With this class action lawsuit gaining traction, the NCAA faces mounting pressure to reassess its prize money rules and potentially alter the existing framework to provide a fairer and more equitable system for student-athletes looking to balance their academic pursuits with professional ambitions in sports. The outcome of this legal battle could have significant implications for the future of collegiate tennis and the broader landscape of NCAA regulations governing athlete compensation.