Judge questions terms of NCAA settlement with UNC tennis player

A federal judge has questions about the $2 million settlement ending a lawsuit between University of North Carolina tennis player Reese Brantmeier and the NCAA. A hearing is scheduled June 18 in Greensboro.

Brantmeier and former University of Texas player Maya Joint had challenged the college sports governing organization’s prize-money rules for tennis players.

The settlement announced in April set up a $2 million fund to compensate players affected by NCAA prize-money restrictions. The organization also agreed to relax its prize-money rules.

Chief US District Judge Catherine Eagles issued an order Friday calling for Brantmeier’s lawyers to file a new brief by June 11. It should address “the apparent absence of injunctive relief for enrolled students playing tennis for their schools, the sufficiency of the notice on that point, whether that dichotomy creates a conflict of interest between and among class members, and the scope of the Released Injunctive Claims,” according to the order.

The NCAA also can file a brief by June 11 “addressing any of the questions.”

April 28 court filings detailed the settlement Brantmeier and Joint reached in the suit filed against the NCAA in 2024.

“The proposed settlement is an extraordinary outcome for the Classes, and the injunctive relief obtained will positively impact future generations of student-athletes, including many individuals who are not members of the Classes,” Brantmeier’s lawyers wrote.

In addition to $2.02 million settlement fund, with $10,000 designated for both Brantmeier and Joint, the NCAA agreed to cover another $2.5 million in lawyers’ fees and settlement administration costs.

“[T]he NCAA has agreed to alter its current restrictions on student-athletes’ acceptance of awards, bonuses, and other monetary prizes (collectively, ‘Prize Money’ and ‘Prize Money Rules’) prior to initial, full-time collegiate enrollment,” according to the court filing. “The elimination of such restrictions will apply to student-athletes in all sports − not just tennis.”

Brantmeier led the class-action suit challenging the NCAA’s ban on college tennis players accepting prize money from tournaments like the United States Open. The suit could affect thousands of current and former athletes.

Brantmeier won the NCAA’s women’s singles tennis championship in November.

Eagles issued a July 2025 order certifying two classes of potential plaintiffs in the case.

Lawyers for Brantmeier, Joint, and the NCAA filed a joint document in August spelling out the process for contacting potential class members. It indicated that the group of potential plaintiffs — mostly those who registered with the NCAA’s eligibility center from January 2021 to August 2025 —  “encompasses over 17,000 individuals.”

Eagles’ 30-page order last July 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.

Eagles’ order added 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 2025 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 was a member of UNC’s 2023 national championship team. She was “ranked No. 2 in singles and No. 1 in doubles” in the February 2024 college tennis rankings. She won the women’s singles national title last November with a 6-3, 6-3 victory over Berta Passola Folch of the University of California at Berkeley.

While still in high school, Brantmeier 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 in November 2024 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 in 2024.

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 2024, 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.

“Judge questions terms of NCAA settlement with UNC tennis player” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.