NCAA Division III athletic scholarship ban antitrust lawsuit

Division III is the NCAA's largest division, and it has one rule that sets it apart: its schools may not give scholarships for athletics. A new proposed class action says that rule is an illegal agreement among competitors and asks a federal court to end it and pay back athletes who competed under it.

The case is Printz v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 2:26-cv-12448, filed October 23, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. It is a lawsuit, not a settlement. No judge appears on the docket yet, and there is no claim form or money available.

The defendant is the National Collegiate Athletic Association, which sets rules for its three divisions. According to the NCAA's Division III facts and figures, Division III has 416 active member schools, about 80% of them private. The NCAA's Division III page says more than 200,000 athletes compete in the division.

According to Sportico, the three named plaintiffs are:

• Jackson Hale, a senior defensive back at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Washington.
• Connor Printz, who played basketball at Claremont McKenna College in California from 2020 to 2024.
• Chris Jennings, who swam and played lacrosse at the University of Lynchburg in Virginia from 2019 to 2023.

Sportico reports that they are represented by Michael Goldberg, co-lead counsel in Ray v. NCAA; Title IX lawyer Christine Brown; Matt Strauser of Burns Charest; and local counsel Andrew Purdy of Brown Neri Smith & Khan.

The suit targets Division III Bylaw 15.01.3, which says a member school "shall not award financial aid to any student on the basis of athletics leadership, ability, participation or performance." The same principle appears in the Division III Philosophy Statement. Schools may still give need-based and academic aid on the same basis as other students.

Sportico reports that the complaint points to a January 2026 negotiated resolution between the NCAA and the University of Lynchburg in a major infractions case involving $155,325 in financial aid to athletes in 2022-23 that was treated as improper. The case is recorded in the NCAA's infractions database. Sportico says the complaint does not state whether Jennings received any of that aid.

The complaint, as quoted by Sportico, says: "The NCAA has engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to fix the price of Division III athletic labor at zero by prohibiting every member of Division III, the NCAA's largest division at more than 400 schools, from offering a single penny of athletic scholarship." The plaintiffs describe the athletic scholarship as "one of the most common discounts on an American college education."

The plaintiffs give personal examples. According to Sportico, Printz says he quit basketball early in the 2023-24 season to focus on a social media business because he had taken out large loans to cover nearly $80,000 in tuition, room and board that year. The complaint says that "with even just a meaningful partial scholarship," he would have kept playing. Sportico also reports that Printz claims up to $50,000 in endorsement deals with Reebok, Clif Bar and other brands, which the plaintiffs use to argue that amateurism no longer justifies the ban.

The legal theory leans on NCAA v. Alston, the 2021 Supreme Court decision holding that NCAA limits on education-related benefits are subject to ordinary antitrust review. The complaint calls the Division III ban "undeniably a multi-conference agreement in Alston's own taxonomy," according to Sportico.

The NCAA has not answered in court. Sportico reported that an NCAA spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and we found no public NCAA statement on the case as of October 25, 2026. The NCAA's own materials describe Division III as a model that integrates athletics into campus life with an emphasis on academic success.

Nothing has been decided. The docket shows the complaint, a civil cover sheet, a request for summons and a notice of interested parties, all filed October 23. The court has not ruled on whether the ban violates antitrust law or whether a class can be certified.

There is earlier case law on point. In Rock v. NCAA, a federal court in Indiana dismissed claims against the Division III ban in 2013 at the pleading stage, reasoning that the rule was presumptively procompetitive. Sportico notes the new case was filed in the Ninth Circuit, whose rulings in O'Bannon and Alston favored athletes.

Sportico reports that the plaintiffs seek to represent athletes who have competed in Division III since October 21, 2022. The exact class wording, any subclasses and any exclusions were not available because the complaint had not been posted to the public docket we reviewed. A judge must approve any class, and definitions often change.

1. Keep records of the school, sport and seasons you competed in Division III since fall 2022.
2. Save financial aid award letters, cost of attendance statements and loan records for those years.
3. Current athletes should keep following existing NCAA and school rules. The ban remains in force.
4. Watch for court-approved notice, which would name the case and the court.
5. An inquiry to Class Action Pulse is not joining the case.

There is no payment now. According to Sportico, the plaintiffs seek treble damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, which lets a person injured by an antitrust violation recover three times their damages plus attorneys' fees, and an injunction ending the ban. Damages would depend on what schools would have offered without the rule, which would have to be proven. These are requests, not awards.

• 2013: Rock v. NCAA dismisses earlier Division III scholarship claims.
• June 2021: Supreme Court decides NCAA v. Alston.
• October 21, 2022: start of the proposed class period.
• January 2026: Lynchburg infractions case resolved.
• October 23, 2026: complaint filed.

There are no claim, opt-out or objection deadlines. Antitrust damages claims generally must be brought within four years.

• Antitrust: laws that bar competitors from agreeing to fix prices or limit competition.
• Price fixing: an agreement among competitors to set a price. Here the plaintiffs say the price of athletic labor was set at zero.
• Treble damages: triple the proven damages, available in private antitrust suits.
• Procompetitive: a restraint a court finds helps competition overall, for example by creating a distinct product.

The NCAA will be served and is expected to respond, likely with a motion to dismiss that relies on Rock and on Division III's role as a distinct model. If the case survives, the parties would exchange evidence before the plaintiffs ask the court to certify a class. Cases of this kind usually take years.

The complaint was not available on the public docket when we checked on October 25, 2026. This article's description of the plaintiffs, allegations and requested relief comes from Sportico's report, and quotations from the complaint are as Sportico published them. Membership figures come from the NCAA. Docket details come from CourtListener. We will update this page when the complaint is posted.

Class Action Pulse is not a law firm or settlement administrator and does not guarantee eligibility or payment. This article is general information, not legal advice.