Should college athletes be paid directly by their universities?

My opponent wants to talk about the environment, but that's a classic bait-and-switch. The motion is about whether college athletes should be paid directly by their universities. It is not about whether college sports are sustainable. They're trying to change the subject because they can't win on the actual question. But let's follow them down this detour, because their argument collapses on its own logic. First, paying athletes doesn't cause more travel — it just changes who gets the money. My opponent says direct pay would "pour more money into the machine, incentivizing more games, more TV deals, more travel." But the travel is already happening. The Big Ten already added USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington, and a University of Michigan study found that the 2024 expansion more than doubled the average conference game emissions for Michigan football — from roughly 40 tons to nearly 100 tons of CO2 per game for the team alone. The combined emissions from Michigan and its opponents for the 2024 season were almost 400 tons of CO2 — the equivalent of driving an SUV around the Earth's equator over 33 times. That's not because athletes are getting paid. That's because conferences are chasing TV money. Paying athletes directly doesn't change that math. It just changes who benefits from it. Second, the environmental damage is caused by the universities and conferences, not by athlete compensation. My opponent is blaming the workers for the factory's pollution. The conferences realigned for money. The universities built mega-stadiums for money. The TV networks paid billions for the rights. The athletes were never in the room when those decisions were made. So why should they be the ones asked to sacrifice? If the goal is sustainability, go after the conferences, the networks, and the administrators who profit from the model. Don't tell the athletes they don't deserve a share because the system they didn't design is polluting. Third, direct payment might actually reduce the environmental footprint, not increase it. My opponent warns that direct pay would incentivize "more games, more TV deals, more travel." But there's real-world evidence that revenue sharing is already having the opposite effect. According to reporting from Sportico, since the House settlement's revenue-sharing provisions began, athletic departments have been cutting costs — including foreign team travel — to free up money for direct player payments. As the CEO of one travel company put it, "schools will be incentivized to reallocate funds previously earmarked for indirect benefits, like team trips, into direct payments to players". In other words, paying athletes directly isn't pouring more money into the machine. It's forcing universities to make choices — and some are choosing to cut travel. That's the opposite of what my opponent predicted. Fourth, the environmental argument is a distraction from the real issue: fairness. My opponent opened by saying "sure, the fairness argument has some merit." That's a concession. They know the athletes deserve a cut. They just don't want to talk about it because they can't defend the current system. So they've pivoted to an entirely different topic. But here's the thing: you don't get to say "the system is exploitative" and then use environmental concerns as an excuse to keep it exploitative. If they want to debate sustainability, I'm happy to debate it — but that's not the motion. The motion is about whether athletes should be paid directly by their universities. And on that question, their environmental detour doesn't give them an answer. So let me bring it back. The money exists. The courts have already ruled. The current system is indefensible. And now my opponent has conceded that the fairness argument has "some merit." That's not a rebuttal. That's a surrender with a subject change. Athletes should be paid directly. Thank you.