UNC women’s tennis player Reese Brantmeier has reached a settlement with the NCAA in her federal class action over prize money restrictions.
The parties agreed on material terms resolving the case and requested a 60-day pause in proceedings to finalize the agreement in federal court.
Ther article we previously written about in Sports Litigation Alert by contributor and FSU Masters Student Youcef Rihane.
That article, in part, follows below:
“Brantmeier sued the NCAA in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on March 18, 2024, with co-plaintiff Maya Joint, also a talented tennis player, entering the case a few months later. The NCAA regulations that prohibit Division 1 tennis players from keeping earnings from professional competitions are being contested in the case of Brantmeier v. NCAA. The plaintiffs claimed they had to give up large prize money earnings in order to maintain college eligibility.
According to their case, the NCAA’s prize money rules constitute an unjustifiable restraint of trade, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. They claim that these limitations hurt Division I tennis players’ ability to compete in the job market. Chief Judge Catherine C. Eagles certified the complaint as a class action on July 28, 2025, following lengthy motions and hearings. This implies that the result may be advantageous to thousands of Division 1 tennis players, both present and past.
In the continuous discussion concerning student-athletes’ rights to make money off of their sports achievements, the class action certification represents a pivotal moment. If the case is successful, it may change how collegiate athletics and professional tennis and other sports opportunities are balanced.
Background on the Case
The NCAA, which oversees college sports across nearly 1,100 member schools, enforces strict eligibility rules for Division I tennis players. Before entering college, tennis athletes can accept up to $10,000 annually in prize money plus reimbursement for actual tournament expenses. After enrolling, they may only receive prize money equal to their expenses, effectively eliminating the chance to profit from competing in professional events while playing college tennis.
Reese Brantmeier, now a student-athlete at the University of North Carolina, earned nearly $50,000 at the U.S. Open before college but had to forfeit most of it. Maya Joint, who committed to the University of Texas before pursuing a professional career, but never played, likewise lost significant prize money and eventually became ineligible for competing in the NCAA. Both athletes argue that these restrictions deprive them and others like them of fair compensation for their performance and unlawfully limit their ability to compete in professional markets.
In October 2024, Judge Eagles dismissed parts of the initial lawsuit, concluding that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently demonstrated how the rules affected all NCAA individual sports. This early setback narrowed the case and forced the plaintiffs to refine their strategy. Instead of challenging the rules across all sports, Brantmeier and Joint amended their complaint to focus exclusively on Division I tennis.
By narrowing the case to tennis, the plaintiffs seemingly strengthened their legal arguments under antitrust law. They alleged two distinct violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act: (1) price-fixing, because the NCAA artificially caps the amount of prize money athletes can earn, and (2) group boycott, because member schools collectively enforce these restrictions. This amended complaint – narrowly focused on tennis – succeeded where the original fell short. On July 28, 2025, Judge Eagles granted the motion for class certification, a major victory for the plaintiffs.
Class Action Certification
Judge Eagles’s 30-page opinion carefully analyzed whether the plaintiffs met the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Her ruling certified two separate classes: an injunctive class under Rule 23(b)(2), consisting of all persons who played Division I tennis or were ruled ineligible due to the prize money rules since March 19, 2020; and a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), made up of all persons who forfeited prize money during that same period and either played Division I tennis or submitted eligibility information to the NCAA.
The court found that both Brantmeier and Joint adequately represented the classes. Their claims were typical of those of other athletes, since all were subject to the same rules. The numerosity requirement was easily met, with roughly 12,000 Division I tennis athletes affected since 2020. Commonality was also clear: the central legal question whether the Prize Money Rules violate the Sherman Act, applied equally to all.
The NCAA argued that many athletes are unlikely ever to earn meaningful prize money, making Brantmeier and Joint poor representatives. Judge Eagles dismissed this, pointing out that the same limitations apply to players who win modest sums of money, like $100 over expenditures. She also rejected worries that removing the regulations may put some players at a disadvantage by giving roster positions to athletes who are more competitive, concluding that such dispute within the class did not compromise certification.
For the injunctive class, Judge Eagles found that a single ruling on the legality of the prize money rules would resolve the claims for all class members. If the plaintiffs prevail, an injunction would free every athlete to accept prize money without losing eligibility.
The damages class was examined more closely. The NCAA argued that identifying members who forfeited prize money would be challenging. The NCAA already keeps detailed eligibility and compliance data, the court argued in its disagreement. Judge Eagles further decided that since forfeited prize money can be easily calculated using data that is currently available, individualized damages estimates did not invalidate certification.
The court appointed Brantmeier and Joint as class representatives and confirmed their legal team experienced in antitrust and class action litigation as class counsel. Judge Eagles set deadlines for the parties to submit proposals for class notices and anticipated a trial date in summer 2026.
Implications and Next Steps
The certification of this class action carries profound implications for both tennis and the broader landscape of college athletics. For tennis players, it challenges one of the sport’s unique burdens: restrictions on prize money that do not exist in the same way for athletes in many other sports. If successful, the lawsuit could allow players to pursue professional opportunities without sacrificing their collegiate careers.
Beyond tennis, this case fits into a broader trend of legal challenges to NCAA rules under antitrust law. Following the Supreme Court’s NCAA v. Alston (2021) decision and the ongoing evolution of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights, the Brantmeier v. NCAA case reflects growing judicial skepticism of NCAA restrictions that limit athlete compensation.
The NCAA faces the prospect of significant damages if it loses, with potentially thousands of athletes entitled to recover forfeited prize money. More importantly, an injunction would dismantle the prize money rules, fundamentally altering the way the NCAA regulates individual sports.”
