Generally, one sport creates net income--football. At a few schools, basketball does as well. Every other sport loses money. So in your proposal would you only funnel money to football?

And "raising the profile of the school" doesn't work like most fans on a sports board think--generally the academic profile of the school raises the athletic profile and not vice versa. Many good athletes see the value of getting a degree from a good school. The vast majority of the working world doesn't care if the school you went to has a good baseball or swimming or basketball team. That doesn't influence hiring decisions, it doesn't influence scientific grants, it doesn't' influence academic rankings.

Additionally, part of the current tuition is almost certainly already going to subsidize some athletics programs. If football's revenue doesn't cover the costs of the other sports, where do you think the money comes from? The worst part of your proposal would be the optics of it--an additional cost specifically earmarked for sports when many students just don't care and may already be struggling to get through school.

I think most people here agree that forcing someone to pay for something is a bad idea in any context. The proposal was a dumb one. Don't double down.