I think it's important to highlight that the motion wording says "revenue they generate" that means this is probably earned revenue that is generated from wining championships in the collage track. My argument is simple: College athletes deserve a direct share because they spend the most time and effort of anyone in the collage sport ecosystem toward the ganering the said money. For example, the average collage student spends physical energy training as well as time when school is of session to continously train so as to get better, it's principally justified to earn directly because they are the main contributors to the generated revenue.

It is incorrect for the opponent to say that "athletic departments loose money" for two reasons. The first is the simple intution that athletic departments are directly funded by money garnered from tuition fees. The University of Nairobi for example, situated in Kenya, demarcated 11% of it's total revenue toward student athletic activities according to the offical website for East African Universities. The second is even if it is true that the collage departments loose money, the motion says athletes get a "direct share of the revenue they generate" in this case, it's simple. If the athletes don't make money, they do not get money, that argument is therefore less persuasive in this debate. Lastly, the argument on funding other sports, albeit strong, still is not reasonably proven.

My opponent is misconstruing my rebuttal. I simply said if money doesn't exist, it doesn't count as generated revenue and therefore the athelets get nothing. In summary, Collage students deserve a direct share because they put in the most effort, Collages have separate funds to supply to students with regard to capital income and lastly, if no money is generated, no one gets anything therefore his main argument collapses since no one really goes into a loss.