If indeed we were to pay our student—athletes in those sports [he means high-
revenue sports], we probably would eliminate maybe 22 of the other sports that
we have at the University of Minnesota because only three of them generate
enough money to pay for themselves.
—University of Minnesota Athletic Director Joel Maturi (Twin Cities Pioneer
Press, www.twincities.com, April 24, 2009)
Frankly, we are agnostic on whether athletes should be paid more than their grant—in-aid along with the rest of the future values they choose to generate with their education and training at their university. We also feel that arguments about how to do it, if ever, put the cart before the horse because they are based on a lack of understanding of college sport finances (Joe Nocera  at the New York Times is just the latest in a long ongoing discussion). But we are not so noncommittal on arguments used to defend the current system of player compensation (in addition to what we will show as weak logic in the epigraph, see NCAA counsel Donald Remy’s defense  at NCAA.org).
As in the epigraph, the unwavering response to calls for pay—for-play by athletic directors is that they are barely breaking even, so where will the money come from? The answer is that the money is already there, but it takes a book chapter to demonstrate that this is true. The power of this myth comes from the same misunderstanding about the relationship between university administrators and their athletic department apparent in the other myths we have examined about college sports. The power of this