Is this argument more about the perceived "have's" and "have not's", or about redshirting?? To me those are two separate arguments and I find it hard to smoosh the two together, but that is just me. I am all for redshirting and really don't see what baring it is if your family comes from wealth, or it doesn't. People can argue all they want until they are blue in the face that this is somehow inherently "unfair" because of one's personal socio-economic situation...seems pretty illogical to base something that overwhelmingly seems like a good thing for college athletes (redshirting), because some may have a situation in which they come from a family that doesn't make as much money as another family. My family was very poor growing up, and I was the first to go to college on both sides of my family and had to take loans out, work a part time job and try and wrestle...never once did I think taking a redshirt benefited the rich kid, and it however somehow hurt me. Everyone's life situation is different, and I didn't begrudge the kids who had money, I instead focused on myself and what I had to do to better myself and my financial situation...whether there was redshirting allowed or it wasn't made no difference because of my lack of money in college, it did make a difference in how prepared kids were for doing athletics and academics in college regardless of income level...in a good way.
As for the argument that even NIL is for the super elite and "the privileged" (sure like to know how you define that ), again NIL isn't inherently for or against anyone...it is there for anyone to take advantage of...just because one person may be better at marketing themselves than another person doesn't mean it isn't fair.