A University of North Carolina tennis player\u2019s class-action lawsuit against the NCAA would not go to trial until November 2026. That\u2019s more than one month later than parties in the case had recommended.<\/p>\n
Chief US District Judge Catherine Eagles issued an order last week setting a Nov. 2, 2026, trial date in the case brought by UNC\u2019s Reese Brantmeier. Brantmeier and former Texas player Maya Joint are named plaintiffs in a case that could affect thousands<\/a> of current and former athletes.<\/p>\n Lawyers on both sides of the dispute recommended a trial for the week of Sept. 28, 2026, two weeks after the conclusion of the US Open Tennis Championships. Eagles\u2019 order indicated she would be unavailable that week.<\/p>\n The suit challenges the college sports governing agency\u2019s restrictions on tennis players accepting prize money from non-NCAA tournaments.<\/p>\n Eagles issued a July 29 order certifying<\/a> two classes of potential plaintiffs in the case.<\/p>\n Lawyers for Brantmeier, Joint, and the NCAA filed a joint document in August spelling out the process for contacting potential class members.<\/p>\n \u201cPlaintiffs propose that the Notice be sent in two steps: first, Notices will be sent to the most recent email addresses known to the NCAA for all prospective student-athletes who registered (or initiated the registration process) with the NCAA Eligibility Center as potential Student-Athletes in Men\u2019s or Women\u2019s Tennis between January 1, 2021 and August 5, 2025, and a few individuals who were entered into the eligibility center database at an earlier time and have been identified as likely members of the Damages Class,\u201d according to the court filing. \u201cThis group encompasses over 17,000 individuals.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSecond, postcards containing a short description of the litigation and a link to the Notice web site will be mailed to the most recent known home addresses of all class members who could not be reached by email,\u201d the document continued.<\/p>\n The NCAA \u201cdoes not object\u201d to Brantmeier and Joint\u2019s proposal, though \u201csuch contact information is not the most recent contact information that is available for class members,\u201d the document explained. \u201cThe NCAA does not possess or maintain current contact information for members of either the Injunctive Relief Class or the Damages Class.\u201d<\/p>\n The NCAA objected to placing information about the \u201ccontinuing litigation\u201d on its Media Center website.<\/p>\n Notices to proposed class members could be sent in November, with an opt-out period lasting through Jan. 15, 2026.<\/p>\n Eagles\u2019 30-page order<\/a> in July spelled out the reasons for certifying classes in the dispute.<\/p>\n \u201cPlaintiffs Reese Brantmeier and Maya Joint want to compete in Division I college tennis and also to accept all the prize money they win by competing in non-collegiate tennis tournaments,\u201d Eagles wrote. \u201cThe defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association and its member institutions impose rules that severely limit the amount of prize money current and prospective Division I tennis athletes can accept without losing their Division I eligibility. The plaintiffs say that those rules violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and they seek injunctive relief and damages on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. Because the plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 23 requirements for each class, the Court will certify the classes.\u201d<\/p>\n Before starting college, a prospective Division I college tennis player \u201cmay accept up to $10,000 in prize money per year plus additional prize money that covers their actual and necessary expenses for the particular tournament in which they won that prize money,\u201d Eagles explained. Current Division I players can accept money only to cover \u201cactual and necessary expenses.\u201d<\/p>\n Brantmeier filed suit in 2024 after she was forced to give up most of the \u201cnearly $50,000\u201d she won playing in the US Open, the nation\u2019s most prestigious tennis tournament. Joint, who joined the suit later as a second plaintiff, turned pro after a single semester in college.<\/p>\n Now, Eagles\u2019 order adds two additional groups of potential plaintiffs. The first covers any player who has competed in Division I tennis since March 19, 2020, or was ineligible to compete because of NCAA prize money restrictions. That class includes 12,000 players, according to the court order.<\/p>\n The second class covers any player who \u201cvoluntarily forfeited\u201d prize money during the same time period. Brantmeier\u2019s lawyers have \u201cprovided evidence that there are over 60 members\u201d of that class, Eagles wrote.<\/p>\n \u201cUnder long-standing amateurism regulations, the NCAA prohibits Tennis Student-Athletes from accepting cash awards, bonuses, and other monetary prizes (collectively, \u2018Prize Money\u2019) awarded by third parties for their performance in non-NCAA competitions, such as the U.S. Open Tennis Championships,\u201d Brantmeier\u2019s lawyers wrote<\/a> in a February court filing.<\/p>\n With limited exceptions, \u201cthe NCAA bylaws provide that a Student-Athlete forfeits eligibility and is barred from intercollegiate competition in the sport of tennis if they accept Prize Money in connection with non-NCAA tennis competitions,\u201d the court filing continued.<\/p>\n \u201cPlaintiffs seek relief on behalf of themselves and proposed Damages and Injunctive Relief classes from the application and past effects of the NCAA\u2019s Prize Money Rules, to compensate class members for past forfeited amounts and to allow them to retain Prize Money for their performances in non-NCAA competitions without losing their collegiate eligibility,\u201d Brantmeier\u2019s lawyers added.<\/p>\n \u201cGoing back decades, the highest and most prestigious levels of non-NCAA competition tennis have been open to college Student-Athletes, including, but not limited to, the Olympics, the U.S. Open Tennis Championships, Wimbledon, the Australian Open and the other tennis tournaments,\u201d the court filing added. \u201cThese competitions include substantial Prize Money for player compensation. For example, the 2024 U.S. Open offered $75 million in total compensation to players, with prize money for reaching the first round or \u2018main draw\u2019 reaching $100,000.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThose benefits, however, are all but foreclosed to prospective and current Student-Athletes. The NCAA\u2019s arbitrary rules restrict the amount of Prize Money that Student-Athletes competing in Tennis may accept, causing anticompetitive harm to the markets for their labor and reducing their earning ability,\u201d Brantmeier\u2019s lawyers argued.<\/p>\n Brantmeier, now a UNC senior, was a member of the school\u2019s 2023 national championship team. She was \u201cranked No. 2 in singles and No. 1 in doubles\u201d in the February 2024 college tennis rankings.<\/p>\n While still in high school, she competed in the 2021 US Open and won $48,913 in prize money. \u201cHowever, due to the NCAA\u2019s Prize money restrictions, Brantmeier was forced to forfeit much of that money to maintain her collegiate eligibility,\u201d according to the court filing.<\/p>\n The NCAA challenged expenses Brantmeier attempted to claim for the 2021 tournament, including the cost of the hotel room the 16-year-old shared with her mother. Only after Brantmeier made a $5,100 charitable contribution related to the challenge did the NCAA clear her to play for UNC in 2023.<\/p>\n Brantmeier signaled last November that she was narrowing the focus<\/a> of her lawsuit to cover only tennis players affected by NCAA prize-money restrictions. Eagles had rejected an injunction<\/a> that would have covered athletes in multiple college sports.<\/p>\n \u201cThe NCAA has long instituted a money first, student-athletes second approach in its operations, rules, and regulations. For over a century, from its inception until July 1, 2021, the NCAA prohibited the gifted student-athletes at its member institutions3 from receiving any compensation for their athletic performance and services beyond an athletic scholarship and certain other educational-related benefits,\u201d Brantmeier\u2019s lawyers wrote last fall.<\/p>\n At the same time, the NCAA \u201chas generated billions of dollars in income,\u201d according to the suit. Brantmeier\u2019s lawyers highlight recent changes that have allowed athletes to benefit from payments linked to the use of their names, images, and likenesses.<\/p>\n \u201cPlaintiffs seek to lift the veil of hypocrisy on the NCAA\u2019s practice of allowing primarily Division I football and men\u2019s basketball student-athletes, who play profit-generating sports in the Power Conferences, to receive virtually all of the pay-for-play money distributed by Collectives while prohibiting student-athletes who compete in Tennis from accepting Prize Money earned in non-NCAA competitions, including but not limited to the US Open Tennis Championships, the Australian Open, Roland Garros a\/k\/a the French Open, and the Championships, Wimbledon,\u201d the amended complaint argued.<\/p>\n