“I had thought that all NCAA divisions still hand out athletic scholarships to their athletes,” Finn Barry told Aussie Gridiron Network.
For the Australian punter, that misunderstanding became part of a much bigger financial decision. He had an opportunity to study and join the football program at Whitworth University in the United States, but NCAA Division III schools cannot offer athletic scholarships. Earning a roster spot was only one challenge. Finding a way to pay for the experience was another.
At DePauw University, fellow Australian Harry Pratt has experienced the same restriction. Yet he sees value in what it helps preserve: a college football environment where teammates compete for playing time without competing for athletic scholarship money. Now the rule shaping both players' experiences faces a federal antitrust challenge. In a response to AGN, the NCAA has confirmed it intends to seek an early dismissal of the case.
For Australian prospects and their families, the question is not simply whether a university could offer a scholarship. It is whether changing the rules would open opportunities without losing aspects of Division III that players value.
The scholarship rule and the Australians living with it
Division III is one of three main NCAA competition divisions. Unlike Division I and Division II, Division III institutions cannot award financial aid based on athletic ability, participation or performance. They can, however, provide qualifying academic scholarships, merit awards and financial assistance based on need. For Barry, that distinction mattered. He received academic and international scholarship assistance to attend Whitworth, but said affordability was central to the decision. “When making my college decision, financial considerations played a crucial role,” he told AGN. Without scholarships and assistance, he said, moving to the United States would have been difficult.
His advice to Australian families is practical: look beyond the advertised tuition price, investigate academic and outside scholarships, check what is available to international students and work out the actual amount the family would need to pay. Barry also values the part of Division III that has nothing to do with a scholarship. He credits Whitworth's coaches, facilities, academic opportunities and relationships with helping him grow as both a player and a person.
Barry believes athletic scholarships would make the pathway more appealing. “I think if Division III football offered athletic scholarships, it would be a lot more enticing for Australian punters and other international players,” he said.
Pratt understands that argument. Financial assistance helped him too: he received academic scholarships at DePauw, where the academic programme and football culture helped shape his decision. “For my parents and me, academics were the main priority,” Pratt told AGN.
But Pratt sees potential consequences beyond the money. He believes the absence of athletic scholarships helps create a supportive team environment: players compete for spots, but not for the financial assistance tied to those spots. He also values the freedom to focus on study or other parts of university life without worrying about maintaining an athletic scholarship. That does not make the football commitment easy. Pratt said training, lifting, meetings, film and games take more than 30 hours of his week, while living far from family and friends can be isolating. For him, those demands are part of an experience that has also been deeply rewarding.
The lawsuit challenging the rules
On 23 October 2026, three current or former Division III athletes — Connor Printz, Chris Jennings and Jackson Hale — filed a lawsuit against the NCAA. Their argument is straightforward: universities should be able to decide for themselves whether to offer athletic scholarships, rather than all being required to follow the NCAA's ban. They say the rule shuts off financial assistance some schools might otherwise offer, and that this breaks US competition law. Those are the athletes' claims; a court has not decided that the rule is unlawful. Even if they win, universities would not automatically have to offer scholarships. Each institution would still decide whether it wanted to and could afford to do so.
What the NCAA told AGN
AGN sought the NCAA's response to the lawsuit and its implications for international athletes. On 3 November (Brisbane time), Sa Heath, the NCAA's Associate Director of External Communications, supplied a memorandum written by NCAA Chief Legal Officer Scott Bearby and circulated to NCAA members on 29 October. The memorandum confirms the NCAA intends to challenge the case early, drawing on Rock v. NCAA, an earlier legal dispute over Division III financial aid restrictions. In March 2013, a federal court in Indiana dismissed claims challenging those rules. “We will pursue all options to obtain a similar, early dismissal of the Printz case,” Bearby wrote.
He also said there were no immediate case deadlines. Heath told AGN the NCAA had no further comment beyond the memorandum at that time. The 2013 decision is part of the NCAA's argument, not a prediction of what this court will decide. As of 10 November 2026, the case remains in its preliminary stages. No ruling on the merits has changed the Division III scholarship prohibition.
Opportunity versus identity
Barry and Pratt are not plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and neither is offering a legal verdict. Pratt has asked that his comments be understood as a neutral explanation of the arguments, not support for either side. Their experiences instead show what is at stake for Australian recruits. Barry knows that more financial support could bring a US education within reach of players who might otherwise miss out. Pratt sees value in a Division III model that puts education alongside demanding football and does not tie a player's place at university to an athletic scholarship.
Pratt recognises that scholarships could help students who cannot otherwise afford university. He also notes that Division II and NAIA programmes already provide other potential scholarship pathways. His concern is not that financial barriers should be ignored, but that removing them in one way could change the experience that attracts some players to Division III.
What Australian recruits should take from this
For now, nothing about the lawsuit changes the scholarship offers Australian players can expect from Division III schools. Recruits should not plan on an athletic scholarship becoming available because a case has been filed. Instead, families should compare the full cost of attendance, available academic and institutional aid, eligibility for international students, and the football and academic fit of each university. They should also understand the workload, distance from home and personal commitment involved.
Pratt does not want the demands of the experience to overshadow its rewards. “College football is an extremely rewarding life experience,” he told AGN. His advice to prospective Australian recruits is practical rather than discouraging: “Only go ahead if you truly love the sport and you can manage being far from home.”
For Barry, access to financial help made the journey possible. For Pratt, the rewards of studying and playing in the United States have justified the demanding commitment. The lawsuit may eventually change what Division III universities are allowed to offer, but it cannot answer the question each Australian recruit must still ask: is this the right university, at a cost I can manage, for the life I want to build? Aussie Gridiron Network will continue following Printz v. NCAA and its implications for Australian athletes.