considering this. Female, full scholarship athletes at ND probably realize they have a pretty good thing going and would be less inclined to rock the boat. But I'm not so sure the same rationale would obtain at any number of SEC/B1G schools. Do you think female sprinters at LSU/Ohio State will be "all good" making $7.25/hour while the starting skill position players are making 7 figures? I'm fairly certain you'd have no shortage of plaintiff's attorneys salivating over that claim.

Even NIL could be creating TItle IX liability at Notre Dame and elsewhere.

ND football players getting $25K each, annually, via "NIL" while the only women's sport in which an entire roster is getting paid is basketball...that could be viewed one of two ways, it seems:
- an unequal opportunity provided by a booster party (more accurately defined as a 3rd party partner of ND's athletic department called FUND), and a potential Title IX violation, - OR _
- an equal opportunity to market one's own name, image, likeness for all student-athletes; CFB players are just simply more marketable and attract more NIL dollars (See: any and all data on TV viewership of CFB/women's sports, the fact the entire WNBA is only 40% the market size of ND football, and so on).

Obviously, I tend to lean towards the side of merit-based compensation and that Major CFB is a unique beast and a multi-billion dollar industry (and as such should be treated differently) while the other college sports are nothing like it and more in line with the extracurricular activities intended from the start.

That being said, not sure the courts will see it that way, as you say.

of other people's salary?

Seriously, people just have the NCAA's talking points down like a bunch of trained monkeys.

"Oh, oh title 9!"

"Oh, oh other athletes will be jealous!"

"Oh, oh most of them don't deserve that kind of salary!"

Silly.

so it's probably just best to not give them any of the money and let the coaches and 350 athletic department employees keep it all.

It's not required to give it either to the athletes or the athletic administration.

and pay them handsomely. And not sure the general student population has an entitlement claim for those millions of dollars in revenue, either, but that's just my opinion.

There are probably no college students treated better, fed better, and provided more financial benefits than football players. With NIL it is not even close. I do not have a lot of sympathy about how "exploited" they are. I compare them to their peer group - other students.

As to whether the general student population is entitled, I would argue that it is the existence of the general student population that makes developmental football an order of magnitude more financially successful than minor leagues in other sports.

Players in this industry should have free-market rights and be able to negotiate for optimal conditions, compensation, etc. Just like their brethren in the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL.

They can certainly still be good students, good classmates, and 18-22 years old at the same time.