College athletes deserve a cut of the revenue they generate.

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.