I'll argue in favor of college athletes receiving a direct share of sports revenue. The central argument is simple: if a university and its athletic department generate substantial income from athletes' performances, athletes should receive a negotiated share of that income rather than relying solely on scholarships and other benefits. ## My opening argument 1. Athletes help generate the revenue, so they deserve a share. College football and basketball games attract audiences, sell tickets, generate sponsorships, and bring in lucrative broadcasting contracts. Athletes' performances are central to that commercial value. It is difficult to justify a system where universities can earn substantial revenue from those performances while athletes are expected to rely primarily on scholarships. 2. A scholarship isn't the same as financial compensation. A scholarship can be extremely valuable, but it pays for education-related costs rather than giving athletes full control over the economic value they help create. Athletes also face injuries and have limited years to compete. Direct compensation gives them greater financial security while they have the opportunity to earn it. 3. Revenue sharing is already becoming a reality. The 2025 House v. NCAA settlement allows participating Division I schools to share revenue directly with athletes, with an initial annual cap of approximately $20.5 million per school for 2025–26. This demonstrates that direct compensation can be incorporated into the college sports system. Every CRS Report +1 ## Anticipating the opposition The strongest counterarguments are that revenue sharing could hurt smaller sports, widen the financial gap between wealthy and less wealthy universities, and divert money from other educational priorities. In fact, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported in 2026 that 94% of Division I athletic programs spent more than they generated in 2023–24. U.S. GAO But those concerns support carefully designed compensation rules, not necessarily a ban on paying athletes. Schools could establish transparent revenue-sharing agreements, protect funding for non-revenue sports, and disclose how athletic income is allocated. My position is not that every athlete must receive the same amount. It is that athletes should have a fair, clearly defined opportunity to share in the revenue their work helps generate. My question to the opposition: If a university can commercially profit from athletes' performances, why should the university have the final say over whether those athletes receive any direct share of that revenue at all?

But that is exactly why revenue sharing makes sense. The fact that most college athletes never go pro is an argument for compensating them while they have the opportunity, not against it. Their college careers may be their only chance to earn money from their athletic abilities, and injuries can end those opportunities at any time. As for scholarships, training, and travel, those are real benefits, but they are also investments that help schools recruit athletes and operate competitive teams. They don't automatically replace direct compensation for the value athletes help generate. If a company covered an employee's training and travel expenses, we wouldn't consider that a substitute for paying them a wage. And yes, revenue sharing could get complicated. But complexity alone doesn't make a policy wrong. Universities already manage complicated television contracts, coaching salaries, sponsorship deals, and recruiting budgets. They can establish transparent rules for athlete compensation, too. Finally, what college sports are "supposed to be" shouldn't mean athletes must sacrifice their financial interests to preserve tradition. College sports can still emphasize education, teamwork, and amateur participation while allowing athletes to share in the revenue generated by major commercial programs. I'm not arguing that every athlete should earn millions or receive an equal share. I'm arguing that compensation should reflect the revenue available and the athletes' contributions. So here's my question: if scholarships and travel expenses are sufficient compensation, why do universities also pay coaches millions of dollars and negotiate enormous broadcasting deals? Why should the people performing on the field be treated differently from the people profiting from the game?

I understand that concern, but I think there's a contradiction in saying that paying athletes turns college sports into a business when major college sports already operate as businesses in many ways. Universities negotiate multimillion-dollar broadcasting contracts, sell expensive tickets, sign sponsorship deals, and sometimes pay coaches enormous salaries. The business side already exists, whether athletes receive a direct cut or not. And paying athletes doesn't mean teams and schools stop mattering. Players can still represent their universities, build team chemistry, compete for championships, and value the traditions that make college sports special. Compensation doesn't automatically erase those things. Professional athletes get paid, yet teamwork and loyalty still matter in professional sports, too. I'd also argue that fair compensation and team spirit aren't mutually exclusive. Athletes can care deeply about their school while also wanting financial security. Those motivations can coexist. Most importantly, we shouldn't confuse preserving a tradition with preserving every part of the system as it currently operates. College sports have changed dramatically as television, sponsorships, and media rights have grown. Allowing athletes to share in the financial success they help create is another change that can be managed without abandoning the educational mission. I'm not saying money should become the only reason anyone plays. I'm saying athletes shouldn't have to choose between being committed students and teammates and receiving a fair share of the revenue their performances generate. **Let me ask you this: if college sports are truly about the team and the school rather than money, shouldn't that same principle apply to university executives and coaches who earn enormous salaries from those very teams? Why should athletes be the