You’re forgetting or never knew that higher education is non profit. People at non profits don’t make 5-10 million a year. If coaches were paid in line with deans and below the president, as it used to be, this would not be happening. The players see the lavish salaries and want their cut.
Nonsense. Of course I know that higher education is officially "non-profit". I also know that once upon a time, sports were for fun, and based on the premise that a healthy body and a healthy mind go together. At first, coaches were volunteers, or minimally paid, and players were not recruited, they were just students. Not surprisingly, over time, though, sports became about winning, and as the community became fans, it especially became about winning. Once it became about winning, the money began to flow, and we inevitably ended up here.
You are forgetting, or never knew, that coaching salaries are set by the free market, just as player salaries will be. It's not a case where AD's just said, "Hmm, I think I'll pay the coach more than the President. That sounds like a good idea." Rather, each AD is under pressure, win, or be fired. Therefore, they pay what they have to pay in order to get a coach who can win. With each AD in the country in the same situation, coaching salaries went higher and higher, and similarly, pay to players will go higher and higher, especially for the best players, the ones who are perceived to be difference makers who can make the team win.
Meanwhile, another area of university life is becoming less "non-profit" than it used to be as well, and that's research. Universities compete for getting research grants. Who can help them "win" at getting research grants? Watch the salaries go up there, too. When it becomes all about winning, and not about education, the inevitable result is that money flows to the places that are most effective at making that "winning" happen.