Not saying I agree, but I understand the question. Like why should a public school pay to have a better tennis team for example. Even if they had zero scholarship dollars to give out, they could still find 12 students who would want to be on the Team. I would have ran cross country if I could have made the Team, certainly did not need any scholarship to sway that choice, I just was not fast enough. So the argument that it allows the school to participate is invalid. As I assume OP means if all schools were playing by the same rules. The level of play would change but why does that matter. Could not each thing be self sufficient with whatever funds they can collect.
I'm ignorant in the actual rule of title9 as been long time since that came out, so that might have to change. I thought the rule was meant to create equal # of Teams but if it ties in rules on scholarship and funding then that's different
Obvious counter argument is we pay taxes to provide many services we don't use but helps the common good.
As someone who had academic scholarship at ISU, I'm glad the school does pay for things that don't make money. And I've yet to donate a dime since I've graduated. More power to those that choose to do so, but I donate to my son's college fund or other charities at this point in life.
I definitely do not like NIL, as I only see this increasing costs of basketball and football games over time. Because becomes a race for more cash, just like pros