Current and former NCAA Division III athletes who competed since October 2022 may be covered by a proposed class action alleging the NCAA illegally fixes their pay at zero by banning athletic scholarships in Division III. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. The NCAA has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
On October 23, 2026, three current and former Division III athletes filed a proposed class action against the National Collegiate Athletic Association in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles. The case, Printz v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 2:26-cv-12448, challenges NCAA Division III Bylaw 15.01.3, the rule that bars Division III schools from awarding financial aid based on athletic ability.The plaintiffs allege that the rule is an agreement among competing colleges to set the price of Division III athletes' labor at zero, which they say is illegal price-fixing under federal antitrust law. They are asking the court to block the NCAA from enforcing the ban and to award damages to athletes who competed in Division III since October 21, 2022. The NCAA has not yet responded in court, and none of the allegations has been proven.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
The Rule Being Challenged
Division III is the NCAA's largest division by number of schools, with more than 400 member colleges. Unlike Division I and Division II, it does not allow athletic scholarships. Bylaw 15.01.3 says a Division III school may not award financial aid to a student based on athletic leadership, ability, participation or performance. Athletes can still receive aid, but only on the same academic or need-based terms that apply to other students.The NCAA has long described the rule as part of what sets Division III apart: athletics as one part of a broader college experience, without athletic scholarships. According to Reuters, the association says Division III athletes remain eligible for institutional aid based on academic achievement or financial need.
What the Lawsuit Alleges
The complaint frames Division III schools as competitors for athletic talent that have agreed, through the NCAA, not to compete on price. According to reports on the filing, the plaintiffs allege an ongoing conspiracy to fix the price of Division III athletic labor at zero. They argue that without the rule, schools would offer full or partial athletic scholarships to recruit and keep athletes, and that athletes have been underpaid as a result.The complaint also argues that the ban pushes some athletes out of their sport. According to coverage of the filing, one of the plaintiffs left his team partway through college because of the cost of attending school, and the complaint says even a partial scholarship would have allowed him to keep playing. The plaintiffs rely in part on the Supreme Court's 2021 decision in NCAA v. Alston, which held that NCAA limits on education-related benefits for athletes are subject to ordinary antitrust scrutiny and violated antitrust law.
These are the plaintiffs' allegations. The NCAA has not been found liable, and it is expected to argue that the rule is a lawful part of how Division III defines itself.
Who Would Be Covered
The proposed class consists of current and former athletes who competed in NCAA Division III. The damages claim reaches back to October 21, 2022, four years before the filing, which matches the four-year limitations period for federal antitrust damages. The plaintiffs also seek an injunction that would end the scholarship ban going forward, which would affect future Division III athletes as well.The class has not been certified. The court would first have to decide whether the case can proceed as a class action at all, and whether the claims survive any motion to dismiss the NCAA files.
What the Plaintiffs Are Seeking
The plaintiffs ask the court to declare the scholarship ban unlawful, to bar the NCAA from enforcing it, and to award damages to the class. Federal antitrust law allows a successful plaintiff to recover three times its actual damages plus attorneys' fees. No dollar amount has been established, and any recovery would depend on the court's rulings on liability and class certification.The plaintiffs are represented by Brown Neri Smith & Khan, Arrowblue, Christine Brown Sports Law and Burns Charest.
Why the Case Matters
College sports antitrust cases have reshaped Division I in recent years. After Alston, the NCAA loosened its rules on name, image and likeness payments, and the 2025 House v. NCAA settlement allowed Division I schools to pay athletes directly. Division III, where schools offer no athletic scholarships at all, had largely stayed outside that wave of litigation.The legal path is not settled. Reuters reported that a federal appeals court in April 2026 upheld the Ivy League's ban on athletic scholarships, finding that the challengers had not properly defined the market they said was harmed. How the court in Los Angeles treats the market for Division III athletes is likely to be an early question in this case.
What Happens Next
As of October 26, 2026, no attorneys had appeared for the NCAA, according to Reuters. The NCAA will have a set period after service to answer the complaint or move to dismiss it. If the case survives, the parties would move into discovery and a later fight over class certification. OCA will update this page as the case develops.Questions
Is there anything for Division III athletes to claim right now?
No. The case was filed on October 23, 2026 and is at the complaint stage. No class has been certified, there is no settlement and there is no claim form. If the case ever produces a recovery, the court would approve a notice process telling class members how to take part.
Does the lawsuit cover Division I or Division II athletes?
No. The proposed class is limited to athletes who competed in NCAA Division III, the only division whose rules bar athletically related financial aid. Division I and II schools may already award athletic scholarships, and Division I athletes were covered by the separate House v. NCAA settlement.
Can Division III athletes get any financial aid today?
Yes. NCAA rules let Division III schools award aid based on academic merit or financial need, as long as athletic ability is not a factor in the award. The lawsuit argues that this is not a substitute for athletic scholarships, while the NCAA says the rule keeps athletics from being rewarded the way academics are.
How is this different from earlier college sports antitrust cases?
Earlier cases challenged Division I limits on athlete pay and benefits, including NCAA v. Alston, where the Supreme Court in 2021 held that NCAA limits on education-related benefits violated antitrust law. This suit is one of the first to target the Division III rule that bars athletic scholarships altogether, a level of college sports that has rarely been the subject of antitrust litigation.
Sources
- Printz v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 2:26-cv-12448 (C.D. Cal. filed Oct. 23, 2026) — docket via CourtListener.
- NCAA Division III Manual, Bylaw 15.01.3 (no athletically related financial aid).
- NCAA Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Division III Scholarship Restrictions, Competition Policy International (Oct. 26, 2026), summarizing Reuters reporting.
- Division III Athletes Sue NCAA Over Scholarship Ban, The College Investor (Oct. 2026).
- NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021) — Supreme Court opinion (PDF).
