The NCAA has reached a settlement with women’s tennis stars Reese Brantmeier and Maya Joint in a federal antitrust class action lawsuit challenging the association’s restrictions on prize money earned by student-athletes in outside competitions. In February 2026, the parties filed a joint motion confirming they had “reached agreement on material terms of a class action settlement fully resolving this action,” though specific dollar amounts have not yet been disclosed. The case, which was certified as a class action in August 2025, potentially covers more than 17,000 Division I tennis players who registered with the NCAA’s eligibility center between January 2021 and August 2025.
The settlement marks a significant moment in the ongoing transformation of college athletics. Brantmeier, a UNC senior, originally filed the federal antitrust lawsuit in March 2024 after being forced to forfeit tens of thousands of dollars she earned competing professionally — money the NCAA’s own rules prevented her from keeping. The case put a spotlight on one of the more absurd contradictions in college sports: athletes could compete in professional events but couldn’t actually keep what they earned beyond a narrow cap.
Table of Contents
- What Led the NCAA to Settle the Prize Money Class Action with Women’s Tennis Stars?
- Who Qualifies as a Class Member in the NCAA Tennis Prize Money Settlement?
- How the NCAA’s $10,000 Prize Money Cap Worked in Practice
- What the Settlement Could Mean for Current and Former College Tennis Players
- Will the NCAA Change Its Prize Money Rules Going Forward?
- How This Case Fits into the Broader Transformation of College Athletics
- What Comes Next for Class Members and the Settlement Process
- Frequently Asked Questions
What Led the NCAA to Settle the Prize Money Class Action with Women’s Tennis Stars?
The roots of this case trace back to Brantmeier’s experience at the 2021 U.S. Open, where she earned approximately $50,000 competing as a high school junior. Under NCAA rules at the time, tennis student-athletes were limited to receiving no more than $10,000 per year in prize money from events not sanctioned by the NCAA. Brantmeier was only allowed to keep $10,000 plus some expenses — meaning she had to leave a substantial portion of her own earnings on the table simply to preserve her college eligibility. That restriction became the foundation of her March 2024 federal antitrust lawsuit. Brantmeier, joined by Maya Joint, a former University of Texas player, argued that the NCAA’s prize money cap constituted an illegal restraint of trade.
The lawsuit identified nearly $190,000 in prize money at issue between the named plaintiffs alone. For context, these are athletes who qualified for and competed in some of the most prestigious tournaments in professional tennis — they earned that money through their own talent and performance, not through any NCAA-affiliated event. The NCAA’s position became increasingly difficult to defend, particularly after the Supreme Court’s unanimous 2021 ruling in NCAA v. Alston, which found that the NCAA’s restrictions on education-related benefits violated antitrust law. A mediated settlement meeting took place in October 2025 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and by February 2026, both sides confirmed they had reached terms. One detail that underscores the absurdity of the NCAA’s original stance: Brantmeier won the 2025 NCAA women’s singles championship in November — while simultaneously suing the association over its prize money rules.
Who Qualifies as a Class Member in the NCAA Tennis Prize Money Settlement?
In August 2025, a federal judge certified the case as a class action, a critical procedural step that expanded the lawsuit’s reach far beyond the two named plaintiffs. The certified class potentially covers around 12,000 Division I tennis players who competed since March 2020. More broadly, the class of potential plaintiffs — primarily those who registered with the NCAA’s eligibility center from January 2021 to August 2025 — encompasses over 17,000 individuals. However, being part of the certified class does not automatically mean every one of those 17,000 players will receive compensation. Class action settlements typically distinguish between individuals who were directly harmed by the challenged practice and those who fall within the broader class definition.
In this case, the players most likely to see meaningful recovery would be those who actually earned prize money in outside competitions and were forced to forfeit amounts exceeding the NCAA’s $10,000 annual cap. A Division I tennis player who never competed in professional events outside the NCAA season may technically be a class member but would have no forfeited earnings to recover. It is also worth noting that the settlement terms have not been finalized or publicly disclosed. The court granted a 60-day window for lawyers to submit the finished settlement terms, and the deal still requires official approval from Chief U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Eagles of the Middle District of North Carolina. Until the settlement receives preliminary and then final approval, the specifics of how class members will be notified and what they need to do to participate remain uncertain.
How the NCAA’s $10,000 Prize Money Cap Worked in Practice
To understand why this case matters, it helps to see how the NCAA’s prize money restriction actually played out for real athletes. Take Brantmeier’s situation: she competed in the 2021 U.S. Open, one of the four Grand Slam tournaments in professional tennis. Even a first-round loss at the U.S. Open pays tens of thousands of dollars. Brantmeier earned roughly $50,000, but the NCAA’s rules meant she could only keep $10,000 plus limited expense reimbursements.
The rest effectively disappeared — money she had earned through her own athletic performance, in an event the NCAA had nothing to do with organizing or sponsoring. This created a perverse incentive structure. Talented college tennis players who were good enough to qualify for professional events faced a choice: compete and forfeit most of their earnings, or skip the opportunity entirely to avoid the headache. For athletes from less wealthy backgrounds, the restriction was especially punitive. A player who needed that prize money to support her family or cover training expenses was told she could earn it but not keep it, all to maintain an “amateur” status that the NCAA itself had been steadily abandoning in other contexts through name, image, and likeness deals. Maya Joint’s involvement as a co-plaintiff added another dimension. As a former University of Texas player, her presence in the lawsuit showed this was not a single-athlete grievance but a systemic issue affecting tennis players across Division I programs nationwide.
What the Settlement Could Mean for Current and Former College Tennis Players
Because the specific settlement dollar amounts have not yet been disclosed, it is difficult to say exactly what individual class members will receive. However, the structure of the case offers some clues. With nearly $190,000 in prize money at issue for just the two named plaintiffs, the total pool of forfeited earnings across 12,000 or more affected players could be substantial. The actual distribution will depend on how the settlement fund is structured and what formula is used to calculate individual payments. There is an important tradeoff that class members should understand. In most class action settlements, participating in the settlement means giving up the right to pursue an individual lawsuit over the same claims.
For the vast majority of affected players, this is a reasonable exchange — the cost and complexity of individual litigation would far exceed any realistic recovery. But for a small number of players who forfeited very large sums, the class settlement amount might be less than what they could theoretically recover on their own. This is a common tension in class actions, and the court will evaluate whether the settlement is fair to the class as a whole before granting approval. Players who believe they may be class members should watch for official notice from the court once the settlement terms are finalized and submitted. Until Judge Eagles grants preliminary approval, there is no claims process to participate in. When notice does go out, it will likely include instructions on how to file a claim and, importantly, how to opt out of the settlement if a class member prefers to pursue individual claims.
Will the NCAA Change Its Prize Money Rules Going Forward?
One of the most significant aspects of this settlement is what it signals about the future of NCAA prize money restrictions. Even before the lawsuit was resolved, the NCAA had been under mounting pressure to modernize its rules around athlete compensation. The Alston decision in 2021 cracked open the door, the NIL revolution blew it wide open, and cases like Brantmeier’s exposed the remaining inconsistencies in the NCAA’s framework. However, a settlement is not the same as a court ruling. Because the parties reached an agreement before trial, there is no judicial opinion declaring the NCAA’s prize money cap an illegal restraint of trade.
That means the NCAA retains some flexibility in how it adjusts its rules going forward. It could raise the cap, eliminate it entirely for certain sports, or restructure it in ways that avoid future antitrust challenges. What it almost certainly cannot do is maintain the old $10,000 annual limit — the legal and practical ground for that restriction has eroded beyond repair. A word of caution for current student-athletes: until the NCAA formally announces revised rules, players should not assume the old restrictions have been lifted. The settlement resolves past claims, but the prospective rule changes will come through the NCAA’s legislative process, which operates on its own timeline. Athletes who earn prize money in outside competitions should consult with their compliance offices before spending or keeping amounts that exceed current limits.
How This Case Fits into the Broader Transformation of College Athletics
The Brantmeier settlement is one piece of a much larger upheaval in college sports governance. The NCAA is simultaneously dealing with the fallout from the House v. NCAA settlement — a separate, much larger case involving billions of dollars in back pay to athletes across all sports — as well as ongoing congressional debates about a federal framework for NIL and athlete compensation.
Each of these developments chips away at the old model of strict amateurism. What makes the tennis prize money case distinctive is its clarity. Unlike some of the more complex NIL disputes, the facts here were straightforward: athletes earned money through their own performance in events the NCAA did not run, and the NCAA told them they could not keep it. That simplicity made the case a poor vehicle for the NCAA to defend, and it is not surprising that the association chose to settle rather than risk a trial that could have produced an unfavorable precedent applicable well beyond tennis.
What Comes Next for Class Members and the Settlement Process
The immediate next step is for the attorneys on both sides to finalize and submit the complete settlement terms within the 60-day window granted by the court. Once submitted, Chief U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Eagles will review the terms and decide whether to grant preliminary approval. If she does, the court will order that class members be notified and given an opportunity to object or opt out before a final fairness hearing.
This process typically takes several months from start to finish. Class members should not expect to receive any payments in the near term — settlement administration, claims processing, and court approval all take time. But the fact that both sides have agreed on material terms is a strong indicator that this case will reach a resolution without further litigation. For the more than 17,000 individuals who may be part of the class, the key action right now is simply to stay informed and watch for official court notices when they arrive.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who are the named plaintiffs in the NCAA tennis prize money lawsuit?
Reese Brantmeier, a senior women’s tennis player at the University of North Carolina, and Maya Joint, a former University of Texas player. Brantmeier originally filed the federal antitrust lawsuit in March 2024.
How many people are potentially part of the class action?
The class of potential plaintiffs encompasses over 17,000 individuals, primarily those who registered with the NCAA’s eligibility center from January 2021 to August 2025. The certified class more specifically covers around 12,000 Division I tennis players who competed since March 2020.
How much money is the settlement worth?
Specific settlement dollar amounts have not yet been disclosed. The parties announced in February 2026 that they reached agreement on material terms, but the final details are still being submitted to the court for approval.
What was the NCAA’s prize money restriction?
The NCAA limited tennis student-athletes to receiving no more than $10,000 per year in prize money from competitions not sanctioned by the NCAA. Any earnings above that threshold had to be forfeited to maintain college eligibility.
When will class members receive payment?
No timeline has been set. The settlement must first be finalized, submitted to the court, and approved by Chief U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Eagles. Class members will be notified with instructions once the court grants preliminary approval, a process that typically takes several months.
Do I need to do anything right now if I think I am a class member?
Not yet. Until the court approves the settlement and issues an official notice, there is no claims process. Watch for communications from the court or the settlement administrator once the terms are finalized.