Reese Brantmeier, a tennis player for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, recently sued the organization for its prize money restrictions, bringing in yet another antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA.
A rule that prohibits tennis players from accepting more than$ 10, 000 in prize money before attending college is central to Brantmeier v. NCAA, with allowances for additional prize money not exceeding actual and necessary expenses. Like another antitrust lawsuits brought against the NCAA, Brantmeier’s main argument is that the NCAA and its member schools and conferences—i. competing companies that join forces to impose NCAA regulations improperly boycott college athletes who break amateurism regulations and fraudulently conspire to fix the maximum wage for college athletes.

On March 18, Jason Miller, Joel Lulla, and another counsel for the 19-year-old filed a problem in a federal district court in North Carolina. Brantmeier seeks documentation of her situation as a class action on behalf of herself and other Division I athletes in “individual sports”, a name the issue defines as tennis, golf, swimming, track and field, grappling, gymnastics, riding, fencing, women’s ball, indoor and outdoor cross country, women’s triathlon, women’s equestrian, rifle and skiing. Brantmeier asks for an injunction to stop the NCAA from imposing prize money regulations, among other measures.
The NCAA is dishonest in many ways because it allows NIL deals and essentially allows NIL collectives to target high class recruits and move site players in pay-for-play arrangements while still restricting prize money. The restrictions on school athletes who compete in a multimillion dollar industry are portrayed as vestiges of sportsmanship, a program that attempts to separate them from amateurs by denying them financial opportunities.
Brantmeier’s personal experience illustrates the financial injuries at stake. As a 16- year- ancient high school junior, she earned$ 49, 109 in full medal funds from the U. S. Tennis Association on account of her performance in the 2021 U. S. Open. But to maintain her NCAA eligibility, she was only permitted to accept up to$ 10, 000—for all competitions. To continue playing college tennis, she had to renounce a significant portion of her income.
Brantmeier was nevertheless deemed unsuitable to perform at UNC in the fall trimester of her freshman year despite what she claims to have done in accordance with NCAA regulations. According to her grievance, the NCAA deemed some of her expenses no “actual and required”. The costs included the cost of a hotel room that she, as a 16-year-old small, shared with her mother, as well as the purchase of a lightweight sensor to track records. She claims the NCAA authorized her to play for the Tar Heels when she agreed to donate$ 5,100 to a charity.
In the forthcoming days, the NCAA did answer the problem and increase rebuttals. The NCAA may probably argue that its regulations for overseeing school activities are acceptable. The organization might say that NIL payments are qualitatively different from game prizes. The former reflects the work of athletes in undoubtedly professional settings, while the latter is intended to reflect an athlete’s potential for profit.

The NCAA has so far prevailed in Bewley v. NCAA, a case in which the NCAA disqualified twin brothers who received compensation as part of playing for Overtime Elite, despite being in a different jurisdiction ( Illinois ) and not binding on Brantmeier’s case. The brothers ‘ receiving a pay to play hockey before going to college, according to U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman, a violation of NCAA law. Whether OTE compensation and reward money in tennis are similar and similar might be up for debate. The fact that some NIL cooperatives engage in give- for- play actions, which the NCAA now says it does n’t get enforcement actions on, also weakens the NCAA’s protection.
Antitrust threats to NCAA regulations governing tennis, skiing, and other low-profile college sports ( in contrast to football and basketball ) might not seem like serious amateur threats. But the reality is quite different. The success of each case against the NCAA builds on previous ones, and it provides precedent for the NCAA to use against it by other parties.
In a case involving the use of college players ‘ likenesses in video games, Ed O’Bannon’s defeat opened the door for states to pass NIL laws. The U. S. Supreme Court’s ruling in NCAA v. Alston that it was illegal to restrict compensation for education- related expenses paved the way for successful antitrust challenges against restrictions on transfers and, most recently, NIL collectives.
The trajectory of Brantmeier’s case remains to be seen, but if it succeeds, the NCAA’s overarching defense of amateurism would take another hit.
U. S. District Judge Catherine Eagles will preside over Brantmeier v. NCAA.