“... little of that money actually makes it into what should be the core brands of a university...”
Wow! Let me get this straight. A football team brings in a lot of money and you think it should be “shared” with other programs like research, extension programs etc? Do you think a person earning over $150,000 should be taxed at a higher level than someone working at a car wash? Should the high income earner then have to donate their money to the car wash guy so he can “improve his life”?
When a student is looking into a college, many of those potential incoming Freshman want a University that has athletics. If they don’t play, then they want to watch. It is part of becoming “part” of the University. Watching a game brings students together at times and they become proud of their school. I’m not saying that is the only requirement for a college selection. If you want a business degree, you want to go to a school with a strong business department. However, attending some games brings out school spirit and a bit of fun in the student’s life. IMHO.
I think a university should be a university. If it wants to host a big athletic club (some don’t, cf. the University of Chicago), then doing so should benefit the purpose of the institution. Analogizing using the athletic program as a means of raising money for the core purpose of the institution that hosts it to taxing the wealthy or successful is simply wrong-headed. Universities from the middle ages to the present day have had a singular purpose, and that purpose is not football, but the service of knowledge. Everything else — student life, grounds-keeping, fund-raising, athletics, . . . — should be ancillary to the actual purpose of the university. Or, perhaps you fancy that tails should wag dogs.