The NCAA is facing another legal challenge over student-athlete compensation, but this time, the dispute involves Division III athletics. On October 23, 2026, three current and former Division III athletes filed a proposed class action lawsuit challenging the NCAA’s longstanding prohibition on athletic scholarships. The plaintiffs argue that the restriction violates federal antitrust law by preventing Division III institutions from competing to provide financial compensation to their athletes.[1]
Unlike Divisions I and II, Division III institutions cannot award scholarships based on athletic ability or participation. Although athletes can receive academic scholarships and need-based financial aid, schools cannot provide financial assistance specifically tied to athletic performance.
The lawsuit, Printz v. NCAA, raises an important question: Can the NCAA continue prohibiting athletic scholarships in Division III when restrictions on athlete compensation are facing increasing legal scrutiny?
What Is Being Challenged?
The lawsuit was filed by Connor Printz, a former basketball player at Claremont McKenna College; Chris Jennings, a former swimmer and lacrosse player at the University of Lynchburg; and Jackson Hale, a current football player at Pacific Lutheran University.[2]
The plaintiffs challenge NCAA Division III Bylaw 15.01.3, which prohibits institutions from awarding financial aid based on athletic ability, participation, or performance. They argue that the restriction constitutes unlawful price-fixing under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act because competing schools have collectively agreed not to offer athletic scholarships.
Printz’s experience illustrates the potential financial consequences. According to the complaint, he faced nearly $80,000 in annual tuition, room, and board expenses while attending Claremont McKenna. He ultimately left his basketball team during his senior season due to financial constraints, and he alleges that even a partial athletic scholarship would have allowed him to continue competing.[2]
The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction preventing the NCAA from enforcing the prohibition, along with monetary damages for Division III athletes who competed beginning in October 2022.
Does the Scholarship Ban Violate Antitrust Law?
The plaintiffs’ argument builds on the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in NCAA v. Alston, which held that certain NCAA restrictions on education-related benefits violated federal antitrust law. Although Alston did not directly address Division III athletic scholarships, the decision reinforced that NCAA compensation restrictions are not automatically exempt from antitrust scrutiny simply because they involve college athletics.
However, the Division III scholarship prohibition has previously survived a legal challenge. In Rock v. NCAA, a federal district court dismissed a similar antitrust claim in 2013, concluding that the prohibition served a legitimate competitive purpose by distinguishing Division III athletics from other divisions.[2] The plaintiffs in Printz argue that the legal landscape has changed significantly since that decision, particularly following Alston and the expansion of compensation opportunities for college athletes.
The NCAA may argue that prohibiting athletic scholarships is fundamental to Division III’s identity, which has traditionally emphasized academics and athletic participation rather than athletic-based financial awards.
This creates an interesting legal question. While the NCAA may have legitimate reasons for maintaining different competitive structures across its divisions, the plaintiffs argue that those differences do not justify an agreement among competing institutions to restrict compensation.
Are Lower-Division Athletes Facing Similar Restrictions?
The scholarship lawsuit is not the only recent legal challenge involving athletes outside Division I. In September 2026, former Emory University basketball player Benjamin Pearce challenged the NCAA’s interpretation of its newly amended fifth-year eligibility rule. Pearce, who competed in Division III basketball for four seasons, sought an additional year of eligibility to pursue opportunities at a Division I institution.[3]
Although the NCAA amended its Division I eligibility rules in June 2026 to permit five seasons of competition, it issued guidance excluding athletes who had already completed their fourth season during the 2025–26 academic year.
On September 22, 2026, a New York trial court granted Pearce a preliminary injunction, finding that the NCAA’s interpretation was inconsistent with the plain language of its amended bylaws. The court also recognized that denying Pearce another season could cause irreparable harm by limiting his opportunities to compete, obtain athletic scholarships, and pursue NIL compensation.[4] Unlike Printz, Pearce did not involve an antitrust claim. Instead, the court examined whether the NCAA’s interpretation of its eligibility rules was arbitrary and capricious.
Although the cases involve different legal theories, both demonstrate how NCAA restrictions can affect the financial and athletic opportunities available to lower-division athletes.
What Happens Next?
If the plaintiffs succeed, Division III institutions could gain the ability to offer athletic scholarships, potentially changing how schools approach recruiting, financial aid, and athletic department budgets. However, removing the prohibition would not require every institution to provide scholarships.
Schools with greater financial resources could gain a recruiting advantage, while smaller institutions may struggle to compete. The change could also raise questions about whether Division III would retain its traditional identity if athletic scholarships became part of the recruiting process.
The NCAA has long relied on distinctions between its three divisions to organize college athletics. However, as athletes continue challenging restrictions on compensation and eligibility, those distinctions are facing increasing legal pressure. The outcome of Printz could reshape Division III athletics by giving institutions greater flexibility in how they recruit and financially support student-athletes. At the same time, it could introduce new competitive and financial challenges for schools that have historically operated without athletic scholarships. As the case moves forward, its implications may extend beyond athlete compensation and challenge what it means to compete at the Division III level.
Sources
[1] Mike Scarcella, NCAA Division III Athletes Sue Over Ban on Athletic Scholarships, Reuters (Oct. 26, 2026).
[2] Division III Athletes Make Antitrust Case Against NCAA’s Ban on Athletic Scholarships, Yahoo Sports (Oct. 2026).
[3] Amanda Christovich, With New Lawsuit, 5th Year Eligibility Battle Reaches NCAA D-II, D-III, Front Office Sports (2026).
[4] Pearce v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 2026 NY Slip Op 26163 (Sup. Ct., Westchester County 2026).
Leave a Reply