In Division III college sports, an athlete’s talent can help a school win games, attract attention, and build a competitive program. But under NCAA rules, that same talent can’t earn an athletic scholarship. Three current and former athletes are now challenging that restriction in court, arguing that it prevents colleges from competing for players and deprives athletes of financial opportunities. Their lawsuit could force the NCAA to defend a rule that has long separated Division III from other levels of college sports

According to Sportico’s Daniel Libit, the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on Friday in the US District Court for the Central District of California. The report indicated that the plaintiffs want the case to cover hundreds of thousands of athletes who have competed in Division III since October 21, 2022.

The lawsuit names three athletes: Jackson Hale, Connor Printz, and Chris Jennings, who competed across different sports across various Division III colleges. At the heart of the legal battle is NCAA Division III Bylaw 15.01.3.

The rule prohibits colleges from awarding financial aid based on an athlete’s leadership, ability, participation, or performance in sports. The plaintiffs are challenging this restriction, putting the NCAA’s long-standing policy under legal pressure.

However, Division III colleges can still offer academic scholarships, merit-based awards, and need-based financial aid. The key issue is whether these schools should also be allowed to provide financial support specifically for athletic talent.

The complaint states, “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.”

Printz’s experience is central to the lawsuit as he left basketball early in the 2023-24 season to focus on his social media business. The complaint also highlights the high cost of his college education. Printz reportedly faced nearly $80,000 in yearly expenses for tuition, room, and board, and he had to take out substantial student loans to cover them.

The complaint states, “With even just a meaningful partial scholarship, Printz would have continued playing through his senior season because his basketball labor would have served to cover a part of the cost of his education.”

The lawsuit also mentions that Printz earned up to $50,000 through endorsement deals with Reebok, Clif Bar and other brands while playing basketball. He earned this money through name, image and likeness (NIL) opportunities. However, the plaintiffs argue that NIL earnings do not solve the problem of colleges being unable to offer athletic scholarships.

Not every collegiate athlete receives NIL deals, and those who do may not earn enough to cover their college expenses. Now, the three athletes want the NCAA to pay damages to athletes affected by the rule. They also want a court order that would prevent the association from enforcing the scholarship ban.

The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act. This law allows courts to award three times the proven antitrust damages in qualifying cases.

Sportico further reported that around 210,000 athletes compete in Division III each year. If the court approves the proposed class action and the plaintiffs prove their claims, that could mean billions of dollars in potential damages for the NCAA.

The lawsuit also faces an earlier legal challenge involving the same issue. In Rock v. NCAA, a federal court dismissed claims against the Division III scholarship ban in 2013. At the pleading stage, the court viewed the restriction as presumptively pro-competitive. The remaining litigation later ended after the court denied class certification in 2016.

The new plaintiffs want the court to reconsider the issue in light of changes in college sports and antitrust litigation. They point to the Supreme Court’s unanimous 2021 ruling in NCAA v. Alston and other cases, including O’Bannon v. NCAA.

The new lawsuit was filed in the Ninth Circuit, where these cases provide the legal background. The plaintiffs argue that the NCAA’s restriction deserves antitrust scrutiny because all Division III member colleges must follow the same rule.

The complaint also mentions a separate case involving the University of Lynchburg. In January, the university reached a negotiated resolution with the NCAA over a major infractions case involving $155,325 in improper financial aid provided to athletes during the 2022-23 academic year.

However, the lawsuit does not establish whether Jennings received any of that financial aid.

Peyton Curry advises athletes to follow current rules

While the lawsuit challenges the NCAA’s policy, former college swimmer Peyton Curry has advised athletes not to expect an immediate change. Curry runs One Lap Ahead, a platform that helps athletes with college swimming recruitment and guidance. She is also a former NCAA Division I All-American and SEC champion swimmer.

In a video discussing the lawsuit, Curry explained why athletes should continue planning their college recruitment under the current rules.

“For now, I would not plan on anything changing,” Curry said in a video shared on One Lap Ahead Instagram page. 

Filing a lawsuit does not automatically change or suspend an existing rule. The case must go through the legal process, and any changes will depend on the court’s decision or future changes to NCAA rules.

Curry also advised athletes to complete a financial pre-read. This means understanding the likely cost of attending a Division III college after accounting for the financial aid they may receive. Athletes should not rule out Division III colleges simply because they cannot offer athletic scholarships.

“We know what NCAA litigation typically looks like, so go ahead with the current rules. I would do a financial pre-read to see what it would look like for me at a DIII, because lots of Division III athletes do end up getting a substantial financial package even without athletic aid,” Curry noted.

For athletes considering college swimming or other Division III sports, Curry advises understanding the full cost of college before deciding. If the plaintiffs win, the lawsuit could affect Division III recruiting and college costs. 

However, athletes must continue following the current system while the court decides whether the NCAA’s ban on athletic scholarships violates antitrust law.