UNC tennis player’s class-action lawsuit against NCAA could contact 17K players

A University of North Carolina tennis player’s federal class-action lawsuit against the NCAA could target more than 17,000 potential plaintiffs. That was one of the key revelations from a document filed Monday in US District Court.

UNC’s Reese Brantmeier and former University of Texas tennis player Maya Joint are the named plaintiffs in the suit. They challenge the college sports governing agency’s restrictions on tennis players accepting prize money from non-NCAA tournaments.

US Chief District Judge Catherine Eagles issued a July 29 order certifying two classes of potential plaintiffs in the case.

Lawyers for Brantmeier, Joint, and the NCAA filed a joint document this week spelling out the process for contacting potential class members.

“Plaintiffs 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’s or Women’s 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,” according to the court filing. “This group encompasses over 17,000 individuals.”

“Second, 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,” the document continued.

The NCAA “does not object” to Brantmeier and Joint’s proposal, though “such contact information is not the most recent contact information that is available for class members,” the document explained. “The NCAA does not possess or maintain current contact information for members of either the Injunctive Relief Class or the Damages Class.”

The NCAA objected to placing information about the “continuing litigation” on its Media Center website.

Notices to proposed class members could be sent in November, with an opt-out period lasting through Jan. 15, 2026.

If the case heads to trial, the parties jointly propose the week of Sept. 28, 2026. “A late September trial will provide sufficient time to resolve all pretrial matters and avoid conflict with the 2026 US Open Tennis Championships, which will be held August 31 through September 13, 2026,” according to the document.

Eagles’ 30-page order last month spelled out the reasons for certifying classes in the dispute.

“Plaintiffs 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,” Eagles wrote. “The 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.”

Before starting college, a prospective Division I college tennis player “may 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,” Eagles explained. Current Division I players can accept money only to cover “actual and necessary expenses.”

Brantmeier filed suit in 2024 after she was forced to give up most of the “nearly $50,000” she won playing in the US Open, the nation’s most prestigious tennis tournament. Joint, who joined the suit later as a second plaintiff, turned pro after a single semester in college.

Now, Eagles’ 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.

The second class covers any player who “voluntarily forfeited” prize money during the same time period. Brantmeier’s lawyers have “provided evidence that there are over 60 members” of that class, Eagles wrote.

“Under long-standing amateurism regulations, the NCAA prohibits Tennis Student-Athletes from accepting cash awards, bonuses, and other monetary prizes (collectively, ‘Prize Money’) awarded by third parties for their performance in non-NCAA competitions, such as the U.S. Open Tennis Championships,” Brantmeier’s lawyers wrote in a February court filing.

With limited exceptions, “the 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,” the court filing continued.

“Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of themselves and proposed Damages and Injunctive Relief classes from the application and past effects of the NCAA’s 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,” Brantmeier’s lawyers added.

“Going 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,” the court filing added. “These 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 ‘main draw’ reaching $100,000.”

“Those benefits, however, are all but foreclosed to prospective and current Student-Athletes. The NCAA’s 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,” Brantmeier’s lawyers argued.

Brantmeier, a UNC junior, was a member of the school’s 2023 national championship team. She was “ranked No. 2 in singles and No. 1 in doubles” in the February 2024 college tennis rankings.

While still in high school, she competed in the 2021 US Open and won $48,913 in prize money. “However, due to the NCAA’s Prize money restrictions, Brantmeier was forced to forfeit much of that money to maintain her collegiate eligibility,” according to the court filing.

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.

Brantmeier signaled last November that she was narrowing the focus of her lawsuit to cover only tennis players affected by NCAA prize-money restrictions. Eagles had rejected an injunction that would have covered athletes in multiple college sports.

“The 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,” Brantmeier’s lawyers wrote last fall.

At the same time, the NCAA “has generated billions of dollars in income,” according to the suit. Brantmeier’s lawyers highlight recent changes that have allowed athletes to benefit from payments linked to the use of their names, images, and likenesses.

“Plaintiffs seek to lift the veil of hypocrisy on the NCAA’s practice of allowing primarily Division I football and men’s 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,” the amended complaint argued.

In a separate document filed in November, NCAA lawyers objected to Brantmeier’s request to have her case cover all NCAA Division I tennis players after she dropped an earlier class-action request.

The original proposed injunction would have applied to any NCAA athlete competing in individual sports, defined by the NCAA as women’s bowling, cross country, women’s equestrian, fencing, golf, gymnastics, rifle, skiing, swimming and diving, tennis, indoor and outdoor track and field, women’s triathlon, and wrestling.

“A mandatory preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, and the Court is not persuaded that Ms. Brantmeier has shown a likelihood of success on the merits for all of the Individual Sports,” Eagles wrote in October 2024.

The post UNC tennis player’s class-action lawsuit against NCAA could contact 17K players first appeared on Carolina Journal.

The post UNC tennis player’s class-action lawsuit against NCAA could contact 17K players appeared first on First In Freedom Daily.