College sports is a business, and athletes are the product. Under the House settlement, schools can now pay athletes directly, up to about $20.5 million a year. That settlement accepted the principle that athletes are owed a share of the money they generate. Schools now can pay athletes, but nobody has to. Everyone else in the system gets a guaranteed paycheck. Why are the athletes the only ones left to the schools goodwill?

You’ve called fairness “a fair instinct” and admitted the current model is flawed. That’s most of my case. Your remaining objection is “who gets paid, how much, and from where.” Those are questions about how to build the system. They aren’t reasons to deny athletes a share, and every other industry answers them with formulas and negotiation. You also say the fence protects Title IX. But critics argue the current settlement already sends a disproportionate share to male athletes? A fence that doesn’t hold isn’t doing its job properly. I'll cut everything short, You admit it’s flawed and fair. "How" is an engineering problem, not an argument against the principle. Why should athletes wait while everyone else gets paid?

You say the settlement doesn’t mandate a direct cut. I know, and I said so. That’s my point. Payment is optional, so athletes have no guaranteed claim to the revenue they generate. You’re describing the problem I’m fixing. You ask who negotiates and who arbitrates. Athletes can be represented, disputes can go to a neutral arbiter, and the share can be a percentage rather than a rigid formula. Every other workforce settles these questions in the open. None of that is a reason to leave athletes dependent on goodwill. And you’ve defended goodwill as the fence, but goodwill isn’t a fence. A school can pay nothing, and nothing stops it.