College athletes deserve a direct cut of sports revenue.

I'll argue in favor of college athletes receiving a direct share of sports revenue. The central argument is simple: if a university and its athletic department generate substantial income from athletes' performances, athletes should receive a negotiated share of that income rather than relying solely on scholarships and other benefits. ## My opening argument 1. Athletes help generate the revenue, so they deserve a share. College football and basketball games attract audiences, sell tickets, generate sponsorships, and bring in lucrative broadcasting contracts. Athletes' performances are central to that commercial value. It is difficult to justify a system where universities can earn substantial revenue from those performances while athletes are expected to rely primarily on scholarships. 2. A scholarship isn't the same as financial compensation. A scholarship can be extremely valuable, but it pays for education-related costs rather than giving athletes full control over the economic value they help create. Athletes also face injuries and have limited years to compete. Direct compensation gives them greater financial security while they have the opportunity to earn it. 3. Revenue sharing is already becoming a reality. The 2025 House v. NCAA settlement allows participating Division I schools to share revenue directly with athletes, with an initial annual cap of approximately $20.5 million per school for 2025–26. This demonstrates that direct compensation can be incorporated into the college sports system. Every CRS Report +1 ## Anticipating the opposition The strongest counterarguments are that revenue sharing could hurt smaller sports, widen the financial gap between wealthy and less wealthy universities, and divert money from other educational priorities. In fact, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported in 2026 that 94% of Division I athletic programs spent more than they generated in 2023–24. U.S. GAO But those concerns support carefully designed compensation rules, not necessarily a ban on paying athletes. Schools could establish transparent revenue-sharing agreements, protect funding for non-revenue sports, and disclose how athletic income is allocated. My position is not that every athlete must receive the same amount. It is that athletes should have a fair, clearly defined opportunity to share in the revenue their work helps generate. My question to the opposition: If a university can commercially profit from athletes' performances, why should the university have the final say over whether those athletes receive any direct share of that revenue at all?