If NIL is based on the fact that athletes deserve money because colleges make money off of their performance, why would a school that operates at a $13 to 15 million loss each and every year, pay its players?

They won't be paying them very long if they are not profitable.

Uber just had their first ever quarter of profitability last quarter. Boeing isn't profitable.

Lyft, Pinterest, Snapchat, Zillow, and Slack has never been profitable. Revlon has unprofitable years regularly. ADT, Spotify, and RiteAid aren't profitable.

They've all been paying employees for a long time. They'll all continue to pay employees for a long time.

The main argument for NIL was that the schools were making tons of money therefore the "workers" should be able to share that money.

“Everyone agrees that the NCAA can require student athletes to be enrolled students in good standing. But the NCAA’s business model of using unpaid student athletes to generate billions of dollars in revenue for the colleges raises serious questions under the antitrust laws. In particular, it is highly questionable whether the NCAA and its member colleges can justify not paying student athletes a fair share of the revenues on the circular theory that the defining characteristic of college sports is that the colleges do not pay student athletes. And if that asserted justification is unavailing, it is not clear how the NCAA can legally defend its remaining compensation rules,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said in his concurring opinion (141 S. Ct. 2141 at 2168).

You're mixing up profit and revenue. And you're misinterpreting Kavanaugh's argument. The main argument isn't that schools are making tons of money and should share it.

The NCAA + member schools are making billions of dollars in revenue from athletes. That doesn't mean they're profitable, because a lot of them spend more than they make. That's the point I was making providing a list of companies that aren't profitable.

Kavanaugh's point isn't about how much money the schools are making. It doesn't matter if they're earning a million in revenue or billions. His argument is that they are businesses, and therefore subject to antitrust law.

Before your quote, he says:

"The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood."

Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work."

"All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood. . .Businesses like
the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of
the product."

His point isn't "they're earning a lot of money, so should have to pay players." It's that under any reasonable definition, the NCAA is a business, and no other business in the country gets to say the very nature of their business depends on price-fixing labor. Profit's not relevant, basic anti-trust law is.

And it may well be the case that OU never pays anybody more than that. What the Supreme Court's saying is that it's illegal to restrict people's ability to earn more if the market will pay them more.

If an OU basketball player finds a way to make more money, why do you care? And why do you care so much that you want to legally restrict him from doing so?

Why not? Is it OK for the taxpayers and students through increased tuition and fees to pay for a Taj Mahal of student center that one of my cousins from Minnesota (sorry SBH) once referred to as more a palace than the student center at the U of M?

Which is a part of the costs of the business to which I refer. Bottom line, support for or opposition to NIL divides very clearly along age lines. Younger folks tend to favor it and older folks do not as much. In the latter case, it is driving interest in and support of college athletics down. That's not a good thing. So to spare the readers of Bobcatattack and endless parade of back and forth, I'll leave it at that - one person's opinion.

schools aren’t paying the NIL. Coming from private businesses. it is athletes marketing themselves outside the university. It’s individuals and businesses exercising their rights within free market, capitalism, etc.

While technically correct, athletes are literally asking during the recruitment process how much will I get in NIL or the brazen ones actually are stating how much they need.

I dont doubt it happens at this level, obviously we lost Sears, but if your choice is 5-10 G5 schools and you take the $5K check over playing time or coach or school... you deserve the disappointments that are coming your way.

The schools we generally compete with for prospects are in the same boat. We will get recruits the same way we always have - with maybe a little on the side - but it will never be life altering money.