comment: >
  
  Because athletes are the people that make the school a lot of money. So it only makes sense that they'd get more direct funding, because having better athletics means more money to go around for everyone else (as an example, in the US football profits cover most of the scholarships for less popular sports, giving tons of kids opportunities they might not have otherwise).
context: I think the issue is academic scholarships don't offer 4 year rides not that athletic scholarships do >
  
  Money talks. Athletes make a good return percentage. >
  
  Short term for the universities? Yes. Long term for society? Less so. >
  
  But which of those is the college going to invest in? It'd be great if we had more accessible education but as long as colleges run as a business they won't subsidise improving the world >
  
  Agreed. I don't get why people assume businesses care about you as an individual person. Their job is to make money. 
  Anytime they say they care about you should be considered a lie and a marketing tactic. >
  
  Money still makes the world go round tho and they bring it in for the university so they earn the scholarships >
  
  Because your book worms don't make money unlike athletes who they can charge tickets food merch etc >
  
  I think you fundamentally misunderstand how athletic scholarships work, they aren’t 4 year “rides”, they are 1yr scholarships that have to be renewed every year by the university. This sets up a power imbalance between the school and the athlete and scholarships can be pulled or not renewed for anything, including injury. >
  
  This is the answer. >
  
  The school does that because they make a massive return on those students