Division III Athletes are Athletes Too

For the past decade, the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) restrictions on student-athlete compensation have faced increased judicial scrutiny. And while Division I athletes have reaped the rewards of expanded scholarship opportunities and institutional revenue sharing, Division III has retained one of collegiate athletics’ most restrictive compensation rules: a categorical ban on athletic scholarships.[1] That rule is now facing a federal antitrust challenge.^[2]

Unlike Divisions I and II, Division III institutions are expressly prohibited from awarding financial aid based on athletic ability, participation, performance, or leadership. NCAA Division III Bylaw 15.01.3 establishes this restriction, preventing Division III schools from offering athletic scholarships regardless of the institution’s willingness to provide them.^[3]

On October 23, 2026, three current and former Division III athletes filed Printz v. NCAA in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.^[4] The plaintiffs, Connor Printz, Chris Jennings, and Jackson Hale,^[5] allege that the NCAA’s prohibition on Division III athletic scholarships constitutes an unlawful agreement among competing universities to suppress compensation for athletic services. Specifically, the complaint states that “[t]he 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.”^[6]

The Athletes’ Argument
The athlete’s legal theory draws heavily on the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in NCAA v Alston (2021).[7] There, the Court held that the NCAA could not shield its restrictions on certain education-related benefits from antitrust scrutiny under the guise of amateurism,[8] which contributed to student-athletes becoming eligible to profit off of their name, image, and likeness. Similarly, the plaintiffs in Printz argue that by collectively prohibiting Division III institutions from offering athletic scholarships, the NCAA is unlawfully suppressing compensation that athletes could otherwise receive in a competitive market.

A previous antitrust challenge to Division III scholarship-bans was dismissed in Rock v. NCAA (2013).[9] The court in Rock held that prohibiting athletic scholarships was procompetitive because it preserved Division III as a distinct, non-scholarship alternative to other NCAA divisions, and that institutions wishing to offer athletic scholarships could simply compete in another division.[10] However, the athletes in Printz argue that the financial and administrative burdens of reclassification make switching divisions an impractical alternative, and further rely on Alston to contend that the NCAA cannot justify a prohibition on athletic scholarships simply by defining Division III as a non-scholarship division.

“What they cannot do is collectively define Division III as a non-scholarship division, agree among themselves to enforce that definition on pain of expulsion, and then offer the definition itself as the agreement’s justification. Such sleight of hand is the exact arrangement Justice Kavanaugh warned against in his concurrence in Alston, when he explained that the NCAA could not ‘avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of the product.’”

Overall, the athletes identify a nationwide market for Division III athletic labor and seek to permanently enjoin enforcement of the NCAA’s scholarship ban while recovering damages for the alleged harm. If successful, the lawsuit could fundamentally alter the structure of Division III athletics and allow schools to independently determine whether to offer athletic scholarships (rather than being bound by a blanket NCAA prohibition).

[1] Although not mentioned, Division II athletes remain eligible for athletic scholarships.

^[2] https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2026/ncaa-division-iii-antitrust-lawsuit-scholarships-1234955281/.

^[3] https://dbukjj6eu5tsf.cloudfront.net/sidearm.sites/stjosephli.sidearmsports.com/documents/2026/8/5/2026-27_DIII_Manual.pdf.

^[4] https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2026cv12448/1044867.

^[5] A basketball player at Claremont McKenna College (CA), a swimmer and lacrosse player at the University of Lynchburg (VA), and a football player at Pacific Lutheran University (WA), respectively.

^[6] https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/egvbgwaropq/Printz-%20NCAA%20antitrust.pdf.

[7] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf.

[8] Id.

[9] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/indiana/insdce/1:2012cv01019/41397/38/.

[10] Id.