• Atlanta
• Boston
• Dallas
• Ft. Lauderdale
• London
• Minneapolis
• New York
• Oakland
• Philadelphia
• Washington, DC

Brantmeier v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, No. 1:24-cv-00238 (M.D.N.C. filed Mar. 18, 2024)

By Matt Veldman

Plaintiffs who sued the NCAA for its policy forbidding student athletes from collecting prize money for competitions before enrolling in college have announced a class settlement resolving the claims, moving for preliminary approval on April 28.

Class representative Reese Brantmeier, a star tennis player at the University of North Carolina, represented a class of NCAA Division I tennis players who competed in college tennis. She sought relief on behalf of a damages class of any player who competed in Division I tennis who voluntarily forfeited prize money earned in a tennis tournament played before enrolling in school, as well as injunctive relief seeking to change the NCAA policy.

As part of the settlement, the NCAA agreed to change its bylaws to allow student-athletes in all sports to accept prize money for competitions before they enroll in college. The settlement also includes a $2 million fund for the damages class, which amounted to approximately 70% of the total damages estimated by the plaintiffs’ expert.

Plaintiffs had originally filed suit in March 2024 and shortly after moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining the NCAA policy, which was denied. The parties then participated in ongoing mediation as the case progressed, including through the court certifying a class and denying dueling motions to exclude each side’s expert.

The motion for preliminary approval remains pending. On May 29, the court expressed reservations about the injunctive relief in the settlement, noting that it apparently provides no relief for enrolled students playing tennis for their schools. Plaintiffs were ordered to file supplemental briefing addressing the court’s questions about due process protections for these enrolled students, including whether notice was sufficient, whether there is a conflict of interest among different class members, and whether the scope of the released claims is appropriate given these potential conflicts.

Plaintiffs responded on June 11, explaining that there was no conflict between class members because they were all seeking the same injunctive relief—eliminating the NCAA pre-enrollment prize money rule. While currently enrolled class members could no longer benefit from the rule change by keeping prize money, they nonetheless shared the same overall interest in eliminating the rule. Further, this was not a case of a “limited pie” of the settlement to be allocated among injunctive class members—the relief took the form of a rule change, not a settlement fund. For that reason, there was no prejudice of certain class members in favor of others, and thus no fundamental conflict that would weigh against approving the settlement.

The court held a status conference on June 18, and has yet to issue an order on the motion for preliminary approval. The case is Brantmeier v. NCAA, 1:24-CV-00238 (M.D.N.C.).

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm or its clients. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

This article was originally published in the California Lawyers Association E-Briefs, News and Notes: July 2026