- A University of North Carolina tennis player's federal lawsuit could affect 10 or more players who competed in the ongoing US Open Tennis Championships.
- UNC's Reese Brantmeier seeks an injunction to block the National Collegiate Athletic Association's ban on college students accepting tennis tournament prize money.
- An 18-year-old player named Maya Joint indicated in a court filing Friday that she could be forced to forfeit $146,000 in prize money unless Brantmeier secures an injunction.
A University of North Carolina tennis player’s federal lawsuit could affect 10 or more people who competed in the ongoing US Open Tennis Championships in Flushing, New York.
A court filing Friday indicated that the lawsuit could help determine whether 18-year-old Maya Joint will be forced to forfeit more than $146,000 in prize winnings from the current US Open. “[A]t least nine other high school or college student-athletes also won prize money at the US Open,” Joint declared in the court document.
UNC player Reese Brantmeier seeks a preliminary injunction against the National Collegiate Athletics Association. Brantmeier is challenging the NCAA’s ban on college students accepting professional tennis prize money.
Joint won three matches in this year’s US Open qualifying tournament and a first-round match in the main event. She earned $146,657 in “prize money, stipends, and per diems,” according to the court filing.
“After my participation concluded, I visited the prize money office where I advised the United States Tennis Association (‘USTA’) that a Motion for Preliminary Injunction was pending in this action, which could impact my ability to accept the prize money I earned in the US Open,” Joint said in the document.
“I requested guidance from the USTA as to the deadline for my decision to accept or forfeit this prize money,” she added. “I was informed by the USTA representative that I must accept or forfeit my prize money before the end of the US Open.”
The tournament ends Sunday.
USTA rejected a request from Joint’s lawyer for an extension while a federal judge considers Brantmeier’s request for a preliminary injunction.
“Unless the NCAA rules are set aside, on Sunday, September 8, 2024, I will be forced to either forfeit my NCAA eligibility and college scholarship or forfeit a substantial portion of the $146,657.00 in prize money, stipends, and per diems I earned at the US Open,” Joint said.
US Chief District Judge Catherine Eagles held an Aug. 15 hearing on the requested preliminary injunction. Eagles has issued no decision. US District Court Clerk John Brubaker issued an order Friday appointing a mediator in the case.
Brantmeier’s lawyers filed a motion on July 2 in US District Court seeking the injunction. The motion estimated that the injunction could affect more than 100 current student-athletes.
Brantmeier’s case involves $49,000 she won during the 2021 US Open.
“Brantmeier brought this action on behalf of a class of similarly situated National Collegiate Athletic Association (‘NCAA’) Division I scholar-athletes competing in Individual Sports who intend to participate in non-NCAA athletic events that award Prize Money,” Brantmeier’s lawyers wrote. “The NCAA’s long-standing amateurism rules prohibit Student-Athletes who compete in Individual Sports from accepting ‘Prize Money’ awarded for their performance in non-NCAA competitions.”
“With certain exceptions, a Student-Athlete forfeits eligibility for intercollegiate competition if they accept Prize Money,” the court filing continued. “If they lose their eligibility, Student-Athletes can also lose their education scholarships to an NCAA member institution.”
“Plaintiff and the Proposed Class seek injunctive relief from the remnants of the NCAA’s archaic Prize Money rules so current and future Student-Athletes who complete in Individual Sports can retain Prize Money earned for their performances in non-NCAA competitions without affecting their NCAA eligibility,” the tennis player’s lawyers added.
The court filing noted recent changes in NCAA rules for payment of student athletes, including payments related to use of an athlete’s name, image, or likeness.
“In recent years, the NCAA’s rules against Student-Athlete compensation have come under fire,” Brantmeier’s lawyers wrote. “As a result of recent litigation, the NCAA’s amateurism rules prohibiting educational-related compensation, NIL related compensation, and certain other benefits beyond ‘cost of attendance’ scholarships have been struck down or suspended.”
“In December 2023, NCAA President Charlie Baker proposed shifting the governance of college sports to allow high-revenue athletic programs to directly pay their Student-Athletes through annual trust funds — i.e., direct pay-for-play,” the court filing continued. “Unfortunately, and for reasons that are unclear, the NCAA’s suspension of its prohibitions related to certain Student-Athlete compensation has not been extended to include its rules related to the acceptance of Prize Money earned in non-NCAA competitions.”
“Going back decades, the highest and most prestigious levels of non-NCAA competition in Individual Sports have been open to college Student-Athletes, including, but not limited to, the Olympics, the U.S. Open Tennis Championships, the U.S. Swimming Championships, the U.S. Open Golf Championships, among others. These competitions include prodigious Prize Money for individual performances. But the NCAA’s arbitrary rules prevent Student-Athletes from accepting Prize Money, eliminating the earning ability of Student-Athletes competing in Individual Sports,” Brantmeier’s lawyers wrote.
The court filing details Brantmeier’s challenge in gaining NCAA certification of her amateur status after she enrolled at UNC in 2022. Only after she made a “charitable contribution” of $5,100 was she cleared to play at the university in January 2023.
Brantmeier’s lawyers describe similar issues for a University of Texas women’s tennis player and a “national-level competitor” in women’s bowling at the University of Nebraska.
“The NCAA’s Prize Money Rules are causing real and tangible harm to Individual Sports Student-Athletes and not the athletes who have an opportunity to earn millions in NIL deals playing college football and basketball,” the court filing argued. “The remaining Prize Money Rules constrain lower-earning Individual Sport athletes – particularly women – who have an even lower earning potential in professional sports and thus higher exposure to the effect of a career ending injury.”
“As a result of the NCAA’s rules, Brantmeier and all other similarly situated Division I Student-Athletes have been and will remain forced to forfeit Prize Money earned through their success in non-NCAA athletic events, and will also be subject to the NCAA’s arbitrary auditing of expenses submitted in conjunction with such rules,” Brantmeier’s lawyers wrote.
“The Prize Money Rules in the college education market function as a systematic boycott of any individual who has, at some point in their life accepted Prize Money exceeding the NCAA’s arbitrary limits,” the court filing added. “The NCAA uses its market power to enforce the Prize Money Rules, which require NCAA colleges to engage in a group boycott of players deemed to be out of compliance with the rules. The economic effect on athletes is obvious: they lose the opportunity to acquire a college education in exchange for athletic performance.”
Brantmeier’s legal team also pointed to other cases that showed the NCAA’s willingness to allow some athletes to maintain amateur status after collecting six-figure sums. Swimmer Katie Ledecky competed for Stanford after winning $115,000 in the 2016 Olympics. Joseph Schooling swam for the University of Texas after the Singapore Olympic Committee paid him $740,000 for his gold-medal performance, according to the court filing.