At some point, some college presidents will ask why their universities are engaged in fielding and paying for semi-pro sports leagues with all the headaches (and expenses) that go with this. Income from television rights are plowed back into the athletic department's budget, often augmented by mandatory fees paid by the general student body. Some poor college student working a minimum wage job to pay tuition and fees is subsidizing fellow students earning tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and coaches that are making millions. The lion's share of the players and the coaches are totally mercenary at this point, which makes total sense from their perspective. This level of athletics isn't central to the university's mission = higher education. In fact, if their "student-athletes" are truly interested in education, having to travel across the country to play in the train-wreck of top conference takes them out of the classroom for too much time. The UW football team will have traveled 17,000 miles (UCLA will fly 22,000+ miles) (see
here).
Steve
Students are far less subsidizing athletes as much as they are subsidizing the retirements of tenured faculty (I managed non-academic campus operations at a medical school for two decades) and senior administration.. Faculty who in some cases are retiring with more per annum than their annual salary before retirement, and when working had their teaching assistants handling the bulk of the classroom load. And administrators who know how to play the 'years plus matching' can make bank, an example being Mike Belloti, former AD for U of O and now a college football announcer, who retired with an annual 500K PERS payout for life. Compared to the retirement obligations of a major university, what college student athletes get paid minus the direct NIL contributions from major benefactors is peanuts.
And if stepping back from the forest, our entire four year education system is geared towards a self sustaining industry to benefit school board trustees, administration, faculty, the massive school text book industry (over 3B in sales annually), everyone but the students who are asked to pay tuition for four years that are stuffed with crap that has little to do with the core field they are working to get educated in so they can get professional jobs.
When I was travelling extensively during my years building and managing high tech facilities, I was exposed by curiosity to the academic models in a handful of countries, all who have moved on from the antiquated Edwardian model the US is still operating on. Three year high school models in which young adults declare their intent to go the college route or technical school route by the end of their sophomore year, and either start college or technical courses minus fluff in what would be their third year of high school, finished with what be the equivalent of our four year degrees in the US by the time they are 18 or 19, ready for their profession. While here in the US we continue to educate through a four year high school and four year college model that only benefits the education system industry itself.
Anyone think the rule that college students must be out of high school for three years or have completed two years of college before being eligible to play in the NFL is about anything more than maintaining the athletic base for the colleges while training them up for the NFL? Watched a piece on ESPN in which several college FB players explained they hadn't sat in a classroom in an entire year, being given exceptions to take the courses online - while living on the campus, working out on the campus, and playing on the campus. Essentially full time athletes/part time students, and they shouldn't get paid for that, even if they are always one injury away from losing their athletic future?
The answer to all of our questions is money, and the relentless pursuit of it.