Another lawsuit is challenging the NCAA’s longstanding rules, and this time, Division III athletics are at the center of the debate. Three current and former Division III student-athletes have filed a proposed class-action lawsuit arguing that the NCAA’s prohibition on athletic scholarships violates federal antitrust laws. Unlike Division I and Division II institutions, Division III colleges are prohibited from awarding financial aid based on athletic ability or participation. The plaintiffs argue that this restriction prevents more than 400 Division III institutions from competing financially for student-athletes, effectively fixing the value of their athletic contributions at zero. The lawsuit seeks to eliminate the scholarship ban and recover financial damages for athletes who have competed under the restriction since October 2022.
The case comes at a time when the financial landscape of college athletics has changed dramatically. Division I institutions can now provide direct payments to athletes through revenue-sharing arrangements, and athletes across all three NCAA divisions can earn money through name, image, and likeness (NIL) opportunities. Yet Division III institutions remain prohibited from offering athletic scholarships, even when they have substantial athletic budgets. One plaintiff, former Claremont McKenna basketball player Connor Printz, claims he left his team during his senior season because of the financial burden of attending college, arguing that even a partial athletic scholarship could have allowed him to continue playing. The lawsuit builds on recent court decisions that have challenged the NCAA’s authority to restrict athlete compensation, although a similar challenge to Division III scholarship rules was unsuccessful more than a decade ago.
At Student-Athlete Advisors, we recognize that athletic scholarships could make a meaningful difference for families navigating the rising cost of college. However, we also believe there is something valuable about the Division III model that deserves consideration. Division III has traditionally emphasized the integration of athletics into the broader college experience, allowing students to pursue competitive athletics alongside academics, internships, extracurricular activities, and other interests. While Division III athletics certainly involve significant commitments and highly competitive programs, the absence of athletic scholarships has helped distinguish the division’s philosophy from those of Division I and Division II. Introducing athletic scholarships could change recruiting practices, institutional priorities, and the financial pressures placed on student-athletes and their families.
Of course, allowing Division III institutions to offer athletic scholarships would not necessarily mean that every school would choose to do so or have the financial resources to make them available. It could also create new differences between well-funded athletic departments and institutions with more limited resources. We will be watching this case closely because its implications extend well beyond financial aid. As college athletics continue to evolve, we hope the conversation includes not only what student-athletes should be compensated for their athletic contributions, but also what we want their overall college experience to look like. The benefits of college athletics extend far beyond financial awards, and those benefits should remain an important part of the discussion.
