In a significant legal victory for student-athletes, the NCAA has agreed to eliminate restrictions on prize money earned before college enrollment as part of a federal antitrust settlement, marking another erosion of the organization's decades-old amateurism rules that prevented athletes from profiting from their own competitive achievements.
The development, revealed in a federal court filing on April 28, stems from a class-action lawsuit initially filed by North Carolina women's tennis player Reese Brantmeier in 2024. The settlement would apply to athletes across all sports, not just tennis, and represents a broader shift in how the NCAA regulates athlete compensation following years of legal challenges to its restrictive policies.
The case illustrates the human cost of the NCAA's previous amateurism framework. Brantmeier was forced to forfeit most of her $48,913 in prize money from the U.S. Open in 2021 because NCAA rules restricted such earnings before and during college. Under those rules, she could accept no more than $10,000 in prize money on a total annual basis for all tennis competitions during 2021, when she was in high school, plus reimbursement for undefined expenses. She was also forced to sit out of NCAA competition in the fall of 2022 after the NCAA challenged some of the expenses she submitted for her participation in that same event.
The Financial Impact on Athletes
Former Texas tennis player Maya Joint experienced similar restrictions. Joint was forced to forfeit much of the $147,000 in prize money she earned at the U.S. Open in 2024 in order to maintain her NCAA eligibility. Under the proposed settlement, Joint will receive a $10,000 service award, as will Brantmeier, recognizing their role in challenging NCAA restrictions.
The damages class includes NCAA tennis players who voluntarily forfeited prize money earned at a tennis tournament since March 2020. The NCAA has agreed to pay a total damages settlement of $2.02 million, including $1.875 million in attorney's fees and $425,000 in costs, plus up to $250,000 toward settlement notice and administration costs.
The plaintiffs stated in their motion to approve the proposed settlement on April 28: "The proposed settlement is an extraordinary outcome for the Classes, and the injunctive relief obtained will positively impact future generations of student-athletes."
A Shift Away From Amateurism
Prize money previously was prohibited in NCAA competition because the organization sought to preserve its notion of "amateurism" for athletes rather than allowing them to earn money like professionals. After college enrollment, NCAA rules had prohibited student-athletes from accepting prize money earned for their athletic performances except to cover "actual and necessary expenses."
The settlement reflects a broader pattern of legal pressure forcing the NCAA to abandon restrictive compensation rules. Starting in 2021, the NCAA was pressured into allowing athletes to receive money for their names, images and likenesses. In 2024, the NCAA agreed to remove restrictions on athletes who transfer to different schools after state attorneys general filed an antitrust lawsuit against the organization. Starting last year, the NCAA also allowed schools to share revenue with athletes directly under the settlement terms of a different lawsuit brought by athletes who challenged NCAA restrictions on antitrust grounds.
Remaining Legal Steps
A federal judge still must approve the settlement on a preliminary basis and then schedule a final hearing before final approval. The plaintiffs' motion filed April 28 stated: "Upon this Court's final approval of the Settlement, the NCAA will be enjoined from reinstating the pre-college enrollment Prize Money Rules that existed prior to the Settlement."
Why This Matters:
The settlement addresses a fundamental inequality in how the NCAA treated student-athletes compared to other competitors. While professional athletes routinely earn prize money for tournament participation, the NCAA's amateurism rules forced student-athletes to forfeit earnings from their own competitive achievements—earnings they had legitimately won before even enrolling in college. This created a system where athletes bore the financial cost of the NCAA's ideological commitment to amateurism. The settlement's application across all sports, not just tennis, signals that courts view these restrictions as unjustifiable barriers to athlete compensation. The cumulative effect of multiple antitrust settlements over recent years—on NIL rights, transfer restrictions, and now prize money—demonstrates how legal accountability is reshaping NCAA governance. However, the fact that athletes had to pursue class-action litigation to secure what many view as basic economic rights raises questions about institutional accountability and whether the NCAA's governance structure adequately represents athlete interests in policy-making.