SO GRUESOME was the injury to Kevin Ware’s leg that most media outlets declined to show it. Not often does a young man’s tibia break clean through his skin in the course of a college basketball game. Yet Mr Ware urged his University of Louisville team-mates to carry on without him, which they did, winning the college championship on April 8th.

Mr Ware’s story inspires. It also sells. Shortly after his bone was set, Louisville began hawking shirts referring to him (they were withdrawn when uproar ensued). Mr Ware also became the focus of coverage on CBS, one of two broadcasters that pay the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) nearly $800m a year to air “March Madness”, as the men’s college-basketball tournament is known.

Lucrative TV contracts, licensing fees, merchandising and ticket sales have long turned college sport into a multi-billion-dollar industry. The NCAA estimates that in the 2010-11 academic year its member-institutions spent about $12 billion on athletics and generated about $6 billion in revenue. But though less popular sports like wrestling and rowing drain resources, the leading men’s football and basketball teams make tens of millions for their universities. As one example, Louisville’s basketball team, sponsored by Adidas and playing in the KFC Yum! Centre, turned a $27m profit in the last school year.

None of that trickled down to Mr Ware. Under the strict rules of the NCAA, student athletes are not paid for the value they create. Many do get a free education, as well as room and board, a package that can be worth more than $50,000 a year. Defenders of the system say that is plenty.

Yet critics say a scholarship is hardly commensurate with the value of some student athletes. Take Johnny Manziel, the star quarterback at Texas A&M University. According to a study by Joyce Julius & Associates, a research firm, Mr Manziel generated $37m-worth of media exposure for his school last year. Under the rules, he is not allowed to profit from his performance. But critics allege that the NCAA and its members are doing just that. A replica of his number “2” jersey can be bought for around $60 in the university’s online store, and his avatar will appear in an officially licensed videogame.

Similar complaints can be found in an antitrust lawsuit that poses a threat to the current system. The initial challenge was brought in 2009 by Ed O’Bannon, a former basketball player for the University of California, Los Angeles, who tired of seeing his image used in ways that profited only the NCAA and its licensees. He has since been joined by other former college stars. In June a judge will decide whether to certify the lawsuit as a class action involving all current and former student athletes.

If that happens, the NCAA will face astronomical claims. Mr O’Bannon and company want a share of everything from TV contracts to trading-card deals. A settlement upending the system would be the most likely result. Such a deal might set aside a portion of the revenue generated by elite college sports to pay ex-players and create a trust to compensate current student athletes when they graduate. But it would also raise thorny questions, not least over how the money is divided.