What's odd for me is that personally, I'm about as Laissez-Faire as they get. However, like anything, it can go too far. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act happened because of capitalism gone too far. Imagine if Bezos, Buffett and Ellison all went to the same school (or if their wives did) and that school had essentially limitless funds. Now imagine if that school was Oregon which also has Phil Knight as an outspoken alum willing to spend anything to get a natty. Sure there might be a couple other schools that could compete with them, but the pool of competitors shrinks. Maybe natural seection would work its magic and things would sort themselves out fairly. However we're dealing with large amounts of money for influence and those things have a way of consistently not working out fairly and equitably.
Interestingly enough, you mentioned the NFL as a comparison for parity. Good choice. That league is the model of parity in many ways. Why? In large part because of salary caps and CBAs. The franchises essentially police themselves via their appointee Lord Goodell, who answers to the owners. Why doesn't the NFL get rid of their salary restrictions? Competition breeds success right? Pardon the snarky comment; the larger point here is that the cap and rules are there so that no one team has any financial advantage, at least in theory. Prior to NIL, the players were getting paid; it simply was done quietly (usually) while the NCAA looked away from the $EC schools and some others (ahem, Ohio State). I lived through the Pony Express era at SMU. ESPN did a 30 fo 30 on it and I highly recommend you watch it because it outlines how many of the players were getting paid in the 80's. Brian Bosworth wrote a book in the late 80's where he openly talked about players at Oklahoma being given jobs by local companies for the summers where their attendance was ignored. The NCAA picked and chose who they decided to enforce and punish, and who they didn't, which is what eventually led to the consolidation of power in the $EC/B1G.
