Key Takeaways
- The antitrust case against the NCAA’s prohibition of aid to Division III athletes relies heavily on a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that NCAA restrictions on education-related benefits for athletes are subject to antitrust scrutiny.
- Plaintiffs seek treble damages for athletes who competed from Oct. 21, 2022, forward, plus a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the bylaw as to all current and future Division III athletes. Commentators have suggested potential exposure in the billions of dollars, though any such estimate is speculative at this early stage.
- Bylaw 15.01.3 remains in force while the case proceeds. Member institutions are not named defendants, but the complaint’s conspiracy theory places Division III schools at the center of the case, possibly subjecting them to subpoenas and other involvement in the litigation.
A new antitrust class action takes aim at one of the defining features of NCAA Division III: the prohibition of athletics-based financial aid. Division III is the NCAA’s largest division, with more than 400 schools and roughly 210,000 athletes competing in championship sports each year. The NCAA describes the nonscholarship model as a “core principle” reflecting the view that “athletics participation should not be financially rewarded in the same way as academic achievement.”
In Printz v. NCAA, filed Oct. 23, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, three current and former Division III athletes allege that NCAA Division III Bylaw 15.01.3 violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act by fixing the price of athletic labor at zero across more than 400 member institutions.
Bylaw 15.01.3 provides that a Division III member institution “shall not award financial aid to any student on the basis of athletics leadership, ability, participation or performance.” Division III athletes may receive need-based and academic merit aid only on the same terms available to other students, and the NCAA monitors compliance through its Division III financial aid reporting program, which compares athletes’ aid packages with those of other students.
The three named plaintiffs are Jackson Hale, a current Pacific Lutheran football player; Connor Printz, a former Claremont McKenna basketball player; and Chris Jennings, a former University of Lynchburg swimmer and lacrosse player.
The complaint alleges that 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 … from offering a single penny of athletic scholarship.” Plaintiffs characterize Division III institutions as “competitors in every meaningful sense” and allege that many maintain substantial athletics budgets yet “have agreed not to deploy a single dollar of those budgets in the form of athletic aid.”
“Co-conspirators” are defined in the complaint as “[e]very NCAA member institution and every NCAA member conference in all three divisions that adopted, implemented, or enforced the challenged agreement and is not named as a Defendant.” Therefore, more than just Division III member institutions may be implicated as third parties, although the complaint focuses primarily on that Division.
The plaintiffs rely heavily on NCAA v. Alston (2021), in which the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that NCAA restrictions on education-related benefits for athletes are subject to antitrust scrutiny. They assert that “[t]he Division III prohibition on athletic aid is undeniably a multi-conference agreement in Alston’s own taxonomy,” and they point to the name, image and likeness (NIL) era as evidence that the amateurism rationale has eroded.
The plaintiffs seek certification of two classes:
- Nationwide damages class. All Division III student-athletes who competed from Oct. 21, 2022, forward, seeking treble damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act.
- Injunctive relief class. All current and future Division III student-athletes, together with a permanent injunction barring continued enforcement of Bylaw 15.01.3.
Because the proposed classes could reach athletes at every Division III institution, commentators have suggested potential exposure in the billions of dollars, though any such estimate is speculative at this early stage.
What This Means for Division III Institutions
Although the NCAA is the only named defendant, the complaint alleges that Division III member institutions agreed to the challenged restraint. As a result, institutions will likely receive third-party discovery requests for records such as financial aid data, athletics budgets and financial aid reporting program submissions, and the plaintiffs could seek to add conference and/or institutional defendants as the case develops.
If the plaintiffs ultimately obtained an injunction, Division III’s operating model could change significantly, raising questions about whether and how to offer athletics-based aid. An injunction could also impact budgeting, Title IX equity in the allocation of athletic aid, recruiting and, for some institutions, divisional affiliation. However, any such outcome is likely years away, and the bylaw remains in force while the case proceeds.
As Printz proceeds, Division III institutions may find it useful to consider how the litigation could affect them. Relevant questions may include how current financial aid policies and practices are documented, where records that could be requested in discovery are maintained, and how the institution will communicate about the case with internal and external stakeholders.
Institutions may also wish to follow developments in the case, including the NCAA’s response to the complaint and any ruling on class certification, and to consider how a change to the Division III aid model could affect budgets and recruiting.
McGuireWoods continues to follow Printz closely and will provide updates as the case develops. For guidance tailored to your institution, contact the authors, your McGuireWoods contact or a member of the Higher Education, Sports Industry or Antitrust & Regulation teams.