> it's a terrible way to distribute wealth. But it is a way that currently exists. Do we take it away without a replacement? I think that's a false choice. Wit

> it's a terrible way to distribute wealth. But it is a way that currently exists. Do we take it away without a replacement? I think that's a false choice. Without the massive cost sports programs, it's possible (not a given--there's an argument to be made that sports programs attract more money than they spend) that many freed-up resources could be dedicated to helping underprivileged people achieve academic and career success. Also, there's a strong possibility that wealth-redistribution-via-sports-programs (which I'm not convinced is statistically significant, but whatever) is offset or surpassed by the severe health problems faced by redistribution-beneficiaries who end up with brain injuries.