Current and former athletes have filed a proposed class action lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), alleging it illegally prohibits schools in its largest division from offering athletic scholarships. The lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court in Los Angeles, contends that the NCAA’s Division III is violating antitrust law by fixing the price of athletic labor at zero.
The plaintiffs assert that Division III, which includes more than 400 schools, is the NCAA’s fastest-growing division by school count. Annually, more than 175,000 athletes compete in Division III, according to the lawsuit. Among the prominent institutions listed as part of Division III are the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Johns Hopkins University, the University of Chicago, Williams College, and Caltech.
Despite having significant athletic budgets, many Division III schools have "agreed not to deploy a single dollar of those budgets in the form of athletic aid that would reduce the cost of college for their athletes," the lawsuit states. This agreement, the plaintiffs argue, constitutes an illegal restraint on competition. The legal challenge seeks to end the ban on athletic scholarships for Division III student-athletes, potentially impacting the financial landscape for thousands of college students across the country.
In response, the NCAA maintains that the unavailability of athletic scholarships by Division III schools is a "core principle." The association's stance is that "athletics participation should not be financially rewarded in the same way as academic achievement." This principle has long guided Division III's amateurism model, which emphasizes participation for the love of the sport rather than financial incentives.
This lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal challenges the NCAA has faced across the country regarding its eligibility rules and athlete compensation models. Currently, a federal appeals court is deliberating a multi-billion-dollar settlement. This separate settlement aims to compensate thousands of athletes for the commercial use of their names, images, and likenesses, highlighting a broader trend of legal scrutiny over the NCAA's long-standing amateurism rules.
The case is identified as Connor Printz et al v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, under case number 2:26-cv-12448. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs include Andrew Purdy of Brown Neri Smith & Khan; Michael Goldberg of Arrowblue; Christine Brown of Christine Brown Sports Law; and Matt Strauser of Burns Charest.
