What Pre-collegiate Athletes and Their Families Need to Know After Brantmeier v. NCAA

By Deonta Woods

The NCAA has long operated under the presumption that college sports are amateur sports. For decades, that presumption translated into strict limits on what athletes could earn before setting foot on a college campus. Following the settlement of Brantmeier v. NCAA, that presumption has eroded further — this time around prize money, and the change carries real risks that pre-collegiate athletes must understand before they compete.

The Old Rule — and the Tennis Carve-out

Under prior NCAA rules, a pre-collegiate athlete could earn prize money only to cover actual and necessary expenses for attending and competing in an event. One limited exception existed: tennis players could earn up to $10,000 annually in prize money from tennis events without compromising their future eligibility. Beyond those narrow parameters, prize earnings threatened an athlete’s amateur status.

What Brantmeier v. NCAA Changed

The settlement eliminated the cap on prize money entirely across all sports — not just tennis. Pre-collegiate athletes may now earn unlimited prize money before their initial, full-time collegiate enrollment. But the elimination of the cap comes with a structural requirement that creates its own compliance minefield.

Under the new rule, prize money must come from the sponsor of the event. The NCAA defines “sponsor” as any governing body or other entity that provides prize money based on place finish or performance. Critically, prize money cannot come from an “associated entity” or an “individual” as defined by NCAA bylaws.

Defining “Associated Entity” and “Individual”

These definitions are broad, and their reach is easy to underestimate.

ASSOCIATED ENTITY — NCAA DEFINITION

• Any entity known (or that should have been known) to an institution’s athletics staff to exist, in significant part, to promote or support the institution’s athletics program or student-athletes, or to create or identify NIL opportunities solely for the institution’s student-athletes.
• Any entity directed or requested by an institution’s athletics staff to assist in the recruitment or retention of student-athletes or prospective student-athletes, or that has otherwise assisted in such recruitment or retention.
• Any entity owned, controlled, or operated by — or otherwise affiliated with — an associated individual or another associated entity, other than a publicly traded corporation.

ASSOCIATED INDIVIDUAL — NCAA DEFINITION

• Any individual who is or was a member, employee, director, officer, owner, or agent of an associated entity.
• Any individual who has contributed more than $50,000 during their lifetime, directly or indirectly (including contributions by an affiliated entity or family member), to an institution or to an associated entity.
• Any individual who has been directed or requested by an institution’s athletics staff to assist in the recruitment or retention of student-athletes or prospective student-athletes, or who has otherwise assisted in such efforts.

Read together, these definitions mean that a booster, a collective, or a donor with even an indirect connection to a program could taint prize money paid through an otherwise-legitimate event. The organizational structure of an event’s sponsorship matters as much as the prize amount itself.

The Rule Resets at Enrollment

The expanded prize money opportunity is exclusively pre-collegiate. Once an athlete enrolls full-time in college for the first time, the old framework returns: prize money is again limited to actual and necessary costs of attending and competing in the event, and it must still come from the event’s sponsor. Athletes who plan to continue competing in prize-money events during their collegiate careers should be aware that the more permissive pre-enrollment rules do not carry over.

Three Areas Requiring Careful Attention

The removal of the prize money cap is a meaningful development for elite pre-collegiate athletes. It is not, however, a green light to accept prize money without due diligence. Below are the three areas that warrant close attention before any athlete competes for significant prize earnings:

1. Event vetting

Every event offering prize money should be scrutinized for who is actually funding it. If the sponsor has any association with a university’s athletics program, its boosters, or its collectives — even indirectly — the prize money may be ineligible under the new rule.

2. NIL rights

Competing in an event means agreeing to that event’s terms. Athletes and their families should carefully review what rights an event claims over name, image, and likeness before registering. Those rights could conflict with future or existing NIL arrangements.

3. Collegiate NIL deals

Prospective student-athletes evaluating NIL deals with college programs should review those agreements for two things: covenants that restrict participation in non-collegiate events, and clauses that allow a program to reduce or terminate the NIL deal if the athlete is injured in a non-collegiate event prior to enrollment.

The Bottom Line

Unlimited pre-collegiate prize money represents a genuine and significant shift in the landscape for elite young athletes. But the new rule’s value depends entirely on receiving that money from a compliant source. The burden of verifying compliance falls on the athlete and their family — not the event, not the college program, and not the NCAA. Given the complexity of the associated entity and individual definitions, verification requires professional guidance before money changes hands.

Athletes, parents, and advisors navigating these questions should not rely solely on representations made by an event or program. Independent review of the relevant bylaws, the event’s sponsorship structure, and any existing NIL agreements is the only reliable path to protecting future eligibility.

Sources:

1. Summary of NCAA Regulations – Division I
2. https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/bylawView?id=144996#result
3. https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/bylaw?ruleId=106346&refDate=20260508
4. https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/bylaw?ruleId=106347&refDate=20260508
5. NCAA Changes Draft and Prize Money Rules | CollegeHelpGuide
6. The NCAA’s old prize‑money rule is gone. Here’s why that matters
7. NCAA to revise prize money rules after class-action suit settled – ESPN
8. NCAA agrees to change prize money rules, pay $2M settlement with UNC tennis star
9. NCAA Agrees to Pay $2M Settlement to Former UNC Tennis Player, Lift Prize Money Restrictions | Athletic Business