[pefloresjr]

The basic problem with this situation is that there is a payout at all to anyone. If we are speaking of student-athletes they are all amateurs. They are playing for the love of the game and the glory of their schools. Whenever somebody else is making money off of this, you are going to have a problem of some kind. No matter how that money is distributed, it can't be "fair". If the schools just got their expenses paid and the rest of the money (if any) went to charity them maybe it could be argued it was "fair". Absent something like that, there will always be problems ensuring the money went to the "right" places. Their will be somebody who (possibly justifiably) feels they are slighted.

Different issue.  And honestly if you pay the athletes, how is that done equitably?

It most certainly won't be done "equitably", but employment never is. People get paid what they demand/the traffic will bear/etc. If college sports were professional sports (everybody gets paid), nobody would be talking about "fairness" or "Title IX". It would be a business and the rules would be that of normal commerce. As of now, college sports are not "professional", and for that reason it isn't a "different issue" IMHO. If the schools get paid, and the NCAA gets paid, there is no way that can jibe with "amateur" athletics and can't possibly be fair. If all the schools got was direct costs of the sport in question, you could possibly approach "fair" Once the schools and the NCAA get to keep more than that (i.e. profit), then it isn't going to be fair no matter what you do. The fact the schools may use their "profit" for other sports doesn't make it "fair". The athletes are still getting short changed, as are probably lots of others who donate time and effort to the program in question.
 I would have no problem with the NCAA donating all profits to the Red Cross or spread it out across many legitimate charities. That is "fair". None of the participants benefit directly, so we don't need to argue about who should get what. I am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen though.

This is all dependent on the definition of "fair".  Each player getting their proportional share of the profits earned from their sport is only one version of fair.  But that assumes that each sport is independent of the entire athletic department along with its other sports, and independent of the greater university along with its many other stakeholders.  It also assumes that the commerce model is at least efficient and probably equitable.  There is little evidence that commerce in sports markets is efficient with regard to compensating the athletes.  In fact many sports have great disparity in power and exchange of information.  It is clear that US pro sports vary greatly in the structures that inhibit the market from functioning "fairly."  I get that you are mostly just pointing out the fallacy of seeming equality being the same as fairness, but every fight for fairness has its weaknesses.  That does not mean that the fight is not justified and that those pushing for fairness have less legitimacy than others who have more traditional views of fairness.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

The basic problem with this situation is that there is a payout at all to anyone. If we are speaking of student-athletes they are all amateurs. They are playing for the love of the game and the glory of their schools. Whenever somebody else is making money off of this, you are going to have a problem of some kind. No matter how that money is distributed, it can't be "fair". If the schools just got their expenses paid and the rest of the money (if any) went to charity them maybe it could be argued it was "fair". Absent something like that, there will always be problems ensuring the money went to the "right" places. Their will be somebody who (possibly justifiably) feels they are slighted.

Different issue.  And honestly if you pay the athletes, how is that done equitably?

It most certainly won't be done "equitably", but employment never is. People get paid what they demand/the traffic will bear/etc. If college sports were professional sports (everybody gets paid), nobody would be talking about "fairness" or "Title IX". It would be a business and the rules would be that of normal commerce. As of now, college sports are not "professional", and for that reason it isn't a "different issue" IMHO. If the schools get paid, and the NCAA gets paid, there is no way that can jibe with "amateur" athletics and can't possibly be fair. If all the schools got was direct costs of the sport in question, you could possibly approach "fair" Once the schools and the NCAA get to keep more than that (i.e. profit), then it isn't going to be fair no matter what you do. The fact the schools may use their "profit" for other sports doesn't make it "fair". The athletes are still getting short changed, as are probably lots of others who donate time and effort to the program in question.
 I would have no problem with the NCAA donating all profits to the Red Cross or spread it out across many legitimate charities. That is "fair". None of the participants benefit directly, so we don't need to argue about who should get what. I am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen though.

This is all dependent on the definition of "fair".  Each player getting their proportional share of the profits earned from their sport is only one version of fair.  But that assumes that each sport is independent of the entire athletic department along with its other sports, and independent of the greater university along with its many other stakeholders.  It also assumes that the commerce model is at least efficient and probably equitable.  There is little evidence that commerce in sports markets is efficient with regard to compensating the athletes.  In fact many sports have great disparity in power and exchange of information.  It is clear that US pro sports vary greatly in the structures that inhibit the market from functioning "fairly."  I get that you are mostly just pointing out the fallacy of seeming equality being the same as fairness, but every fight for fairness has its weaknesses.  That does not mean that the fight is not justified and that those pushing for fairness have less legitimacy than others who have more traditional views of fairness.  

Cheers,
Pete F.