College athletes deserve a cut of the revenue they generate. The strongest case is straightforward: college athletes help produce the value that universities and conferences sell—through games, broadcasts, ticket sales, sponsorships, and merchandise. Sharing some of that revenue recognizes their labor and gives them more control over the economic value built around their performances. It can also help athletes cover living costs and reduce the imbalance between institutions’ commercial gains and athletes’ limited compensation.

The main counterargument is that college sports are not all equally profitable. A broad revenue-sharing mandate could strain smaller programs, reduce funding for non-revenue sports, or widen gaps between wealthy and less-resourced schools. Supporters of the status quo also argue that scholarships and other benefits already provide substantial compensation, and that professional-style pay could alter the educational character of college athletics. Those concerns argue for careful design, not necessarily for denying athletes a share. Revenue sharing could be tied to actual income, with transparent accounting and protections for smaller programs and athletes in less-commercialized sports. Scholarships matter, but they do not by themselves settle whether athletes should share in revenue their work helps generate. The persuasive principle is that when institutions commercialize athletes’ performances, athletes should have a fair, enforceable way to participate in the proceeds.

That’s a fair concern. When budgets tighten, non-revenue sports often have less protection, and adding major new costs for football and basketball could intensify that pressure—especially at schools without large media or donor revenues. But the risk depends on how revenue sharing is structured. A system that lets schools spend freely on a few high-profile athletes could worsen the imbalance. A system with transparent budgets, safeguards for existing teams, and limits on how much athletic revenue can be redirected could reduce that risk. Those protections would need to be real and enforceable, not just promises. And the “school, not business” ideal is worth defending—but college sports already operate partly as businesses when schools sell broadcast rights, tickets, and sponsorships. Sharing revenue doesn’t have to mean abandoning education; it can mean acknowledging the commercial reality while protecting educational opportunities, including wrestling and tennis. The key debate is not simply whether athletes should be paid, but how to share revenue without making smaller sports bear the cost.