Antitrust Law | North America | Society

Introduction: NCAA Practices in Question

When Reese Brantmeier stepped onto the court and helped lead her University of North Carolina (UNC) women’s tennis team to an NCAA championship, she wasn’t just competing for a trophy — she was demonstrating the stakes behind a much bigger fight.

A Champion in More Ways Than One

At 21, Brantmeier, a senior majoring in exercise science and studio art (with a minor in global cinema), has already woven together two powerful narratives: one of athletic supremacy, the other of legal reform. According to public reports, she played a key role in UNC’s NCAA title, and her on-court success arrives against the backdrop of her federal antitrust lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) over restrictions on prize money. (Yahoo Sports)

Her achievements spotlight a broader tension: even as college athletes can now profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL), some remain barred from keeping the money they earn from competing — an inconsistency Brantmeier and her legal team argue is deeply unfair.

The Legal Battle: Why Brantmeier Sued

In March 2024, Brantmeier filed a class-action lawsuit against the NCAA, alleging that its amateurism rules around prize money violate federal antitrust law. (PR Newswire) At issue is the NCAA’s cap on how much prize money a student-athlete in an individual sport can accept from non-NCAA competitions, like professional or international tennis tournaments.

Under current NCAA rules, Division I athletes in sports like tennis are limited to accepting only their “actual and necessary” expenses once they are enrolled in college. (Justia Law) Before enrollment, the cap is tighter: athletes may accept up to $10,000 annually in prize money. (The Drake Group, Inc.)

Brantmeier says these restrictions cost her tens of thousands of dollars. As a teenager competing at the U.S. Open, she earned nearly $50,000 in prize money, but could keep only a fraction of it to preserve her NCAA eligibility. (Justia Law)

Her legal team, led by Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman and Miller Monroe & Plyler, argues that the NCAA’s restrictions stifle competition for athletes and unfairly privilege major revenue sports like football and basketball. (Milberg | Leading Class Action Law Firm)

Key Legal Claims and Developments

Antitrust Theory

• Brantmeier’s suit argues that the NCAA’s prize-money rules violate the Sherman Act, because they impose a restraint on trade by limiting what athletes can earn. (The Drake Group, Inc.)
• If successful, the case could force the NCAA to relax or eliminate many of its prize money restrictions — not only for tennis, but for athletes in other individual sports.

Class Action Certification

• Recently, a federal judge certified a class of roughly 12,000 Division I tennis players (since March 19, 2020) for injunctive relief. (National Law Review)
• The court also certified a damages class: players who voluntarily forfeited prize money to remain NCAA-eligible. (National Law Review)
• The judge, Chief U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles, rejected Brantmeier’s motion for a preliminary injunction earlier, meaning the NCAA’s rules remain in effect while the case proceeds. (Athletic Business)
• A trial is currently proposed for summer 2026, according to legal filings. (National Law Review)

Refined Focus

• Initially, Brantmeier sought to challenge prize-money limits across a broad set of individual sports. (Athletic Business)
• But in a revised complaint, she narrowed the case to focus only on tennis, arguing that the sport’s structure and the size of prize purses make the NCAA restrictions particularly damaging. (Athletic Business)

Why It Matters: Implications for College Athletics

1. Economic Fairness for Non-Revenue Sports
   • Many athletes in individual sports don’t earn NIL deals anywhere near what football or basketball players make. For them, tournament earnings are a critical income source, and NCAA caps significantly limit their financial upside. Brantmeier’s lawsuit could open doors for meaningful compensation beyond just covering costs.
2. Amateurism Under Scrutiny
   • The case challenges the traditional concept of amateurism in college sports. While the NCAA has loosened restrictions in some areas (e.g., NIL), it continues to penalize athletes who actually compete professionally — a tension Brantmeier’s lawyers highlight. (Athletic Business)
3. Precedent for Other Sports
   • Although her lawsuit now focuses on tennis, the legal theory behind it could apply to other individual sports with similar prize-money structures — such as golf, swimming, or track and field.
4. Class-Action Leverage
   • Certification of a large class strengthens the plaintiffs’ leverage. If the court sides with them, the changes could benefit thousands of current and former student-athletes, not just Brantmeier.

Risks and Counterarguments

• NCAA Defense: The NCAA argues that the prize-money rules are necessary to preserve amateurism and competitive balance. It may also contend that the caps help prevent recruiting abuses or “pay-for-play” schemes.
• Causation and Damages: Brantmeier must prove not only that the rules are illegal, but that she and other athletes have been harmed in a quantifiable way.
• Change-by-Settlement vs. Change-by-Judgment: The case could settle, resulting in negotiated reform. But if it goes to trial, there’s real risk and uncertainty for both sides.

Conclusion: A Landmark Moment in College Sports

Brantmeier stands at the intersection of athletic excellence and legal activism. Her NCAA championship underscores her credibility — she is not merely a litigator, but a proven elite competitor. That duality strengthens her public case: she is fighting not just for herself, but for a generation of college athletes who may want to earn their keep on the court as well as in class.

If her challenge succeeds, it may trigger a fundamental rethinking of how college athletes — especially those in non-revenue sports — are compensated. And beyond tennis, that ripple could force the NCAA to rebuild its rules of amateurism from the ground up.