By InnerKwest Editorial Desk | November 12, 2025
From a bruising high-school scrimmage to the packed stadiums of Power Five conference showdowns, one truth persists: the athletes who generate the spectacle are often treated as interchangeable — not stakeholders. Yet coaches turn multimillion-dollar salaries, universities rake in broadcast and sponsorship revenue, and the branding engines crank on while the risk-bearers themselves walk away with a scholarship, a brief NIL endorsement, and long-term health concerns.
At InnerKwest, we believe the system must shift. Every athlete from high-school on up who generates income should secure a share of the pie—because:
- Risk & reward must align. When athletes subject their bodies and minds to the collision, travel, exposure, and injury risk, and when their performance fuels revenue beyond tuition and housing, it is fundamentally inequitable that they reap only a fraction of the upside.
- Personal-injury liability is underwritten by someone else. Many student-athletes suffer concussions, joint damage, exhausted careers and diminished earning potential — but post-career support remains scant.
- Talent is the supply-side of a market where others set the price. Coaches, administrators, networks and sponsors hold most bargaining power while athletes are deemed “amateurs” and excluded from key revenue-sharing mechanisms.
- The high-school pipeline matters. If schools and local programs are building the raw material for collegiate and pro sports, then athletes should have their forward rights protected even before they land national TV contracts.
So here’s our argument: Let’s restructure the deal. Create binding frameworks that ensure athletes receive meaningful shares of revenue they help generate, that guarantee post-participation protections, and that extend beyond just the elite few to the many who power high-school and college sports.
The Obstacle: Donald J. Trump is steering the opposite direction
In July 2025, President Trump issued an executive order entitled “Saving College Sports”, which frames the problem in a way that directly contradicts athlete equity. The administration contends that the recent explosion of athlete compensation (especially via NIL and direct pay) threatens the viability of non-revenue sports, scholarships, and the “traditional amateur” model. The White House+3The White House+3Newsweek+3
Key points from the order:
- It claims the university bidding wars for top athletes have produced an “out-of-control, rudderless system” that strains budgets and undermines parity. The White House+1
- It insists that college athletics are not professional sports, and should be preserved on an amateur basis, with guardrails against “pay-for-play.” The White House
- It mandates that revenue sharing to athletes must only be allowed in ways that preserve or expand non-revenue and women’s sports, rather than dilute them. The White House
More recently, Trump reiterated his stance on the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) compensation issue, stating that “even rich colleges don’t make that much money” and warning that athletic payrolls could balloon into “NFL-type” levels without caps. Newsweek+1
In effect, rather than open a floor for athlete-share claims, the administration is working to erect a ceiling. For athletes and advocates of profit-sharing, it means the path ahead isn’t just about securing rights—it’s about resisting a retrenchment of the amateur model.
The Case for Change: Why the Current Model Fails Athletes
- Economic asymmetry
Consider a standout college quarterback whose prominence draws television revenue, ticket sales, merchandise and corporate sponsorships for the school. The coach may get a contract worth tens of millions; the athlete may receive a scholarship plus some NIL deals, but is largely excluded from the broadcast-rights revenue the institution captures. Meanwhile, if that athlete suffers a career-ending injury, their future earning potential can collapse — while the institution moves on to the next recruit. - Injury and after-care liabilities
Think of the athlete whose body is broken down by relentless practice, travel demands, concussions and physical strain. The institution benefits while the athlete pays the long-term cost. Under existing rules, support systems for former student-athletes are inconsistent and often inadequate. Fair market logic suggests that those who generate the value should participate in its distribution — and should have post-participation protections. - High-school and feeder systems create value too
The pipeline from high school to college is often powered by community coaches, booster clubs, municipal investment, and athletes committing years at youth levels. Yet the athlete’s formative labor is neither compensated nor recognized commercially—even as the college/TV economy exploits it. - Amateurism today is selective
When schools promote star athletes, sell tickets, license merchandise, broadcast games and build brands around their players, the amateur label becomes symbolic rather than functional. The result: athletes get the branding exposure, the rights holders extract the commercial upside, and the risk-exposure remains on the athlete.
A Constructive Framework: What Equity Could Look Like
For InnerKwest, the pathway forward includes:
- Revenue-sharing pools: Schools (and their conferences) should allocate a fixed percentage of broadcast, sponsorship and licensing revenue into a trust that athletes can access while active and after graduation.
- Injury-reserve funds: For athletes participating in revenue-generating sports, establish long-term medical and earnings-loss reserves funded partly by institutional revenue, protecting athletes when the game ends early.
- NIL plus collective bargaining rights: Ensure athletes have not only individual endorsement rights, but the ability to negotiate for group protections, transparency in revenue flows, and clear disclosure of how their contribution builds institutional value.
- Feeder-system recognition: High-school and early-college athletes who drive viewership, social media traction and brand building deserve incremental protections—either via trust funds or future-value clauses.
- Parity safeguards: Equity expansion shouldn’t just serve the star players. Non-revenue and women’s sports must benefit from the value created by all athletes—and efforts that siphon resources only to elite athletes must be resisted.
The Push-back: Why the Trump Model Doesn’t Fit
- By insisting on guardrails to limit direct athlete payouts and preserve amateurism, the current administration effectively locks athletes into the status quo of limited upside.
- The argument that payments must serve non-revenue sports is valid—but using that as a veto against athlete revenue-share undermines the logical principle that athletes themselves, not just the institutions, should benefit from value generation.
- The narrative that schools don’t make “that much money” ignores the multi-billion-dollar ecosystem surrounding college sports: broadcasting rights, merchandise, NIL marketplaces, alumni donor systems and more. The mismatch is in how revenue is distributed—not whether it exists.
- Wresting control away from athletes under the umbrella of “preserve the institution” fails to address the core imbalance: those doing the labor should have rights to the proceeds.
A Call to Action
Athletes, coaches, administrators and policymakers: it’s time to recalibrate. We at InnerKwest urge:
- State legislatures and Congress should codify athlete revenue share rights, not just endorsements.
- Universities should proactively restructure deals—rather than wait for litigation—to include athlete-equity clauses.
- High-school and feeder-program administrators should start framing athlete labor as both educational and commercial—and negotiate accordingly.
- Media and public narratives must shift: athletes are not simply “students playing for exposure,” they are productive contributors to a revenue chain that has historically excluded them.
Until the next generation of athletes sees not just a scholarship but ownership stake in what their bodies, talents and risks helped build, the system remains tilted.
In conclusion: Whether you’re the five-star high-school recruit, the walk-on earning his chance under bright lights, or the non-revenue-sport athlete whose efforts underpin the campus brand—your role in generating value merits recognition. The institution, the brand, the broadcast rights—all depend on you.
If we believe in fair market logic, then let’s ensure the pie is bigger—and that you get a meaningful slice. I hate to taint the integrity of this op-ed, but since this president is weighing in on this non-governmental issue, I can’t help but believe he is making good on a behind the scenes campaign promise at a Mar-a-Lago or The Executive Branch social gathering in D C. Sorry, but not.
— InnerKwest Editorial Desk
Serious conversations. Real equity. Athlete rights in focus.
Signal Lost.
Support InnerKwest: Powering Truth & Excellence with Bitcoin
At InnerKwest.com, we are committed to delivering impactful journalism, deep insights, and fearless social commentary. Your Bitcoin contributions help us execute with excellence, ensuring we remain independent and continue to amplify voices that matter.
Support our mission—send BTC today!
🔗 Bitcoin Address: 3NM7AAdxxaJ7jUhZ2nyfgcheWkrquvCzRm
Thank you for standing with us in pursuit of truth and progress!