The legal fight over paying college athletes just reached the NCAA’s largest division. Three current and former Division III athletes sued the NCAA on October 23, 2026. They argue the ban on athletic scholarships at more than 400 schools is illegal price fixing under federal antitrust law.

The case, Printz v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2:26-cv-12448), seeks damages for athletes who competed in Division III since October 21, 2022. It also asks the court to stop the NCAA from enforcing the ban.

About 210,000 athletes compete in Division III each year, according to the NCAA (PDF File). None of them can receive an athletic scholarship today.

What Does The Division III Lawsuit Claim?

The lawsuit claims Division III schools have agreed not to compete on price for athletes. Its target is NCAA Division III Bylaw 15.01.3, which says a school “shall not award financial aid to any student on the basis of athletics leadership, ability, participation or performance.” Division III athletes can still receive merit aid and need-based grants on the same terms as other students.

“The NCAA has engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to fix the price of Division III athletic labor at zero by prohibiting every member of Division III, the NCAA’s largest division at more than 400 schools, from offering a single penny of athletic scholarship,” the complaint states.

Jackson Hale, the first named plaintiff, is a senior defensive back at Pacific Lutheran University. Connor Printz played basketball from 2020 to 2024 at Claremont McKenna College, which ranks among the most expensive colleges in the country. Chris Jennings swam and played lacrosse at the University of Lynchburg from 2019 to 2023.

Lynchburg reached a negotiated resolution with the NCAA in January over $155,325 in improper aid to athletes in 2022-23. The suit doesn’t say whether Jennings received any of that money. Division III rules let schools give athletes merit scholarships only on the same terms as other students.

Why Connor Printz Says The Ban Cost Him

Printz says the ban pushed him off the team. He quit basketball early in the 2023-24 season to focus on his social media business, and he took out substantial student loans to cover nearly $80,000 in tuition, room and board that year.

“With even just a meaningful partial scholarship, Printz would have continued playing through his senior season because his basketball labor would have served to cover a part of the cost of his education,” the complaint states.

The irony sits at the center of the case. Printz says he earned up to $50,000 in endorsement deals with Reebok, Clif Bar and other brands while playing, and Hale also received NIL money. Under current rules, a brand can pay a Division III athlete, but the athlete’s own school can’t put a dollar toward tuition for playing.

How Does This Case Connect To NIL And The House Settlement?

The case is built on the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in NCAA v. Alston. The unanimous decision held that NCAA limits on athlete benefits face ordinary antitrust review. That ruling opened the door to NIL deals and, later, the House settlement that lets Division I schools pay athletes directly.

The money in college sports has been growing ever since. College Sports Commission data shows schools paid 34,915 athletes about $1.77 billion in the first year of revenue sharing. That works out to about $50,700 each.

The cap was $20.5 million per school for 2025-26, and the Senate voted 77-22 in September to write it into federal law through the Protect College Sports Act.

The plaintiffs argue Division III can’t keep a zero-dollar rule while the rest of college sports pays. “The Division III prohibition on athletic aid is undeniably a multi-conference agreement in Alston’s own taxonomy,” the complaint states. The case also lands in the Ninth Circuit, which handled both O’Bannon and Alston. That same court circuit is who allowed schools to pay athletes millions directly.

The NCAA has history on its side too. A federal court in Indiana dismissed similar Division III claims in Rock v. NCAA in 2013, finding the scholarship ban presumptively pro-competitive. However, that ruling came eight years before Alston and before any athlete could legally sign an endorsement deal.

What This Means For Families Paying For Division III

Nothing changes for current recruits or this year’s financial aid offers. Division III schools still build packages from need-based grants and institutional merit awards, and many Division III schools are private colleges that discount tuition heavily.

Mark Kantrowitz’s analysis of 2015-16 federal data found 36% of students at private nonprofit colleges received merit-only institutional grants, averaging $12,060.

If the plaintiffs win, Division III schools would be allowed to offer athletic aid, but not required to. Schools would have to fund that aid from budgets that already typically lose money, and federal auditors found 94% of Division I programs spent more than they earned in 2023-24.

A court could also award damages to former athletes if a class is certified, though that outcome is years away.

What Happens Next In Printz V. NCAA?

The NCAA’s next move is its formal response to the court filing, which we likely won’t see for weeks or months.

A motion to dismiss is the stage where the Rock claims failed, so the first ruling will show whether Alston changed the math. The plaintiffs want triple damages under the Clayton Act, which could make this case worth billions if all Division III athletes are involved. That compares with the $1.77 billion Division I schools paid athletes in a full year of revenue sharing.

It’s important to remember that court cases like this typically take years to resolve. The House v. NCAA case took just about 5 years, and it ended in a settlement agreement, not a trial. If Pritz follows the same path, athletes may not see any resolution until around 2031.