Yes, if they provide entertainment that people are willing to pay for, then why wouldn't they?

Unfair practices are, besides the prompt, separate issues that require different solutions. Even if preventing college athletes from getting paid solved some of these problems, "two wrongs don't make a right". College students aren't teenagers, where some of your points would make more sense; they're adults expected to make many important adult decisions. They're also, arguably, exploited by the loan practices and quality of degrees offered, all without qualms. But when it comes to getting paid fairly, it raises issues. The 2% to 98% argument is a fact of life; it's a natural consequence that happens regardless. It's not necessarily bad. In conclusion, I don't see how these "safety nets" you mentioned, and others, reconcile with everything that I've raised. It's awfully convenient how these concerns arise when it's about "getting fair pay".

The "equitable" arguments you're raising only make sense in other cases like high schools.  "Only 2% making it" is completely natural and even desired. The overall rule being, physics and biology dictate some people are better at solving some problems than others. And history and logic dictate giving them appropriate compensation generates better outcomes. Exceptions exist, and we can agree on changing some cases to be more "equitable", but exceptions don't disprove the norms. The idea that colleges require, or are better off with, these "equitable" or "safety net" policies doesn't make sense. College students are adults, not teenagers, and colleges are supposed to prepare them for real life, not a distorted version of it. These subsidies and equitable policies don't usually exist in real life, and not in this case, because they generate worse outcomes. No one wants to pay to see "participation trophies", people pay to see the best for obvious reasons. Regarding "subsidies" and "equitable" policies in general. There's overwhelming evidence, from history, current times, and logic, that these are often unfounded perceived "goods" and also that they generate worse outcomes. For example, some of the subsidies and policies for colleges and students have directly reduced the quality of degrees and enabled the student loan problems. The very act of subsidizing buying X will immediately increase its cost without an equivalent quality increase. You've just artificially raised demand, and now everyone is paying more for the same X. And worse, if the demand keeps increasing alongside these subsidies, then what happens is the quality of X starts degrading while the price keeps increasing. This is exactly what happened with universities. The funding and subsidies are so high that people stopped caring about quality because it became cheap. And, since people care more about the title of a degree and experience, then universities only have incentive to supply shitty degrees and increase the cost. This is completely obvious. All these real serious problems only came about because of subsidies. In conclusion, college students are adults that are required to vote, pay taxes, be drafted, be exploited by banks and universities with insane loans for useless degrees, to know the law, etc. But somehow, they also require "safety-nets" and "equitable" policies designed for teens. And also, that these subsedies and policies, that prevent them from getting paid while funding other people that otherwise couldn't compete because of a perceived fairness that doesn't exist and isn't desired in real life, are supose to produce better outcomes? How is it fair to undermine the very purpose of competition? Why is it "fair" that some people are entitled to something without merit? Where's the evidence that this "fairness" actually provides better outcomes? And, finally, why are these college students considered adults for everything that takes away their money but considered teens for when it's about fair payment?