Since you hold the burden of proof but prefer to wait, I will begin by setting the logical framework for this debate: On a personal spending level, emotions and desires may drive decisions, which is something society tolerates. However, at the institutional level, money is not free; any financial action must be justified by cold, hard numbers: cost, return, and risk. Therefore, my direct question to you to open your position is: Where will universities get the millions to spend on their student-athletes? And if a university manages to secure such massive amounts, how will it generate a return on them? Furthermore, what are the economic risks that the educational budget will have to bear as a result?

You said: 'It's not about making every player a millionaire. It's about letting the market decide what their work is worth.'. I couldn't agree with you more! And guess what? The market already decides. Thanks to the NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) regulations, the free market is fully open to these athletes. Truly talented players are already making millions of dollars through private endorsements, jersey sales, and external sponsorships without any restrictions. The debate is effectively over. The law exists, and the market exists. If an athlete has true market value, they can convince the market and get their millions today. So my question to you is: If the free market and private companies refuse to pay a certain player millions based on their actual worth, why should an academic university be forced to step in and pay them from an educational budget?

I already addressed every single point you just raised in my previous response. You are demanding things that the NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) regulation has already made a reality. The market is working, and the top athletes are getting their millions from jersey sales and sponsors today. I will leave it to the audience to see that your argument has no standing against the reality of today's free market. The debate is effectively over.

First of all, your coffee shop anecdote holds no logical weight here; it’s a subjective story used for emotional appeal, not a factual argument. But let’s look at your core claim. You previously committed yourself to letting the free market work, and I agree. The beauty of the free market is that it always self-corrects. By claiming that superstars generate all the value while other players (like linemen) get nothing, you are essentially admitting that these other players are just 'free-riding' on the superstars' labor. If these secondary players are truly as indispensable and valuable as you claim, they don't need academic charity from the university. They have a powerful capitalist tool: they can strike or refuse to play. If they withhold their labor, they will force the market to self-correct and recognize their true worth. But asking an academic institution to distort the market and use its educational funds—meant for research, faculty, and labs—to give handouts to players who cannot convince private sponsors of their value is completely illogical. The market has tools for correction; why are you afraid to let it work?

Every single argument you just raised in this final round was already comprehensively answered in my previous responses. You are trapped in a self-contradiction. First, you demanded that we 'let the market decide.' But when I showed you that the free market does decide through the NIL, you changed your mind and complained that 'the market only values celebrity, not labor.' Now, you are asking academic universities to act as a socialist shield to distort the very market you initially championed. A full scholarship worth $50,000 a year, plus free housing, elite training, and medical care, is actual money and immense institutional support that 99% of regular academic students—who graduate with crushing debts—could only dream of. Since you chose to spend your final round repeating old scripts and ignoring reality, I will leave it to the audience to see who stood on factual economics and who relied on repetitive emotional appeals. The debate is closed.