I’ll take the FOR side: college athletes deserve a cut of the revenue they generate. The strongest case isn’t that every athlete should earn the same salary—it’s that schools and governing bodies shouldn’t be able to build a lucrative business around athletes’ labor while denying them a fair share. 1. “They already get scholarships.”Scholarships can be valuable, but they aren’t the same as sharing revenue. They’re compensation in kind, often tied to eligibility and school rules, while the institution controls the commercial use of athletes’ performances, images, and labor. A scholarship may cover education; it doesn’t explain why the people driving ticket sales, media deals, and sponsorships should receive no negotiated share of that income. 2. “Paying athletes will ruin amateurism.”That assumes amateurism is more important than fairness—and that college sports are somehow outside the commercial world. Major programs sell broadcast rights, tickets, merchandise, and sponsorships. Calling the athletes “amateurs” doesn’t make the business less commercial; it just helps preserve a system in which others control most of the revenue. If compensation changes the nature of college sports, then the sport has already changed. The question is whether the rules should reflect reality. 3. “Not every athlete generates revenue.”True—and that’s a reason to design a sensible system, not to deny everyone a share. Revenue can be distributed through negotiated agreements, collective pools, or sport-specific arrangements. A revenue share needn’t mean equal pay, nor does it require pretending every team brings in the same money. The people doing the work should have a voice in how the money is divided. 4. “Schools will cut Olympic or non-revenue sports.”That is a serious concern, but it’s an argument about how to fund and regulate college athletics—not a justification for excluding athletes from revenue. Schools and governing bodies can protect minimum opportunities, set transparent rules, and negotiate how revenue sharing works. If a system depends on underpaying athletes to subsidize other programs, the problem is the system’s priorities, not the athletes asking for fair treatment. The basic principle is hard to dodge: when an institution earns substantial money from people’s performance, those people deserve a meaningful say in—and a fair share of—the proceeds. College athletes aren’t asking for every dollar. They’re asking not to be the only essential contributors who have no guaranteed claim to the revenue their work helps create.

That’s a strong objection—but it argues for careful revenue-sharing rules, not for denying revenue athletes any share. First, “the money has to come from somewhere” isn’t automatic. A revenue share could come from the revenues those sports generate, negotiated media and sponsorship income, or broader institutional and conference budgets. Schools shouldn’t promise unlimited salaries; they should set transparent, sustainable limits and disclose how payments affect other programs. Second, protecting non-revenue sports matters. But preserving them by making athletes in football and basketball bear the cost of everyone else’s model is not necessarily fair. If schools choose to use athletic revenue to support other teams, they can keep doing so—but that subsidy should be explicit, budgeted, and protected rather than treated as a reason the athletes generating the revenue get nothing. And stipends are worthwhile, but they solve a different problem. They can help with living expenses; they don’t give athletes a share in the commercial value their labor creates or a voice in how that value is allocated. So the real choice isn’t “pay stars or save every team.” It’s whether schools can design revenue sharing that protects broad athletic opportunities while giving athletes a negotiated cut. If they can’t, that’s a serious implementation challenge—but it doesn’t erase the fairness claim.

That’s a persuasive case for better athlete benefits—but it doesn’t establish that a revenue share must come at the expense of other sports. Your argument assumes schools would pay athletes first and protect nothing else. That’s a policy choice, not an inevitable outcome. A mandated share could be phased in, capped, and tied to defined revenue, while schools disclose budgets and protect minimum opportunities. If a department says it can’t afford both athlete compensation and its current sports, the next question is whether its spending priorities, revenues, and subsidies are transparent—not whether athletes should automatically go unpaid. Stipends, NIL, health coverage, and degree-completion funds are valuable. But they’re not substitutes for a negotiated share of revenue. NIL pays athletes for particular endorsement opportunities, which are unevenly available; health and education benefits address important needs, but don’t compensate athletes for the commercial value their performance helps create. The best policy should protect broad participation and recognize athletes’ contribution. So I’d support those benefits—but not as a reason to rule out revenue sharing. The debate is about how to share revenue responsibly, not whether athletes should have a claim to any of it.