I think the answer to that is in ucb’s post:
At NESCACs recruited athletes are much more often full pay than the rest of the class (at Amherst 31% of non-athletes are low income vs 4% for athletes and 23% overall student body). I suspect part of the resistance to decreasing coach spots for them with admissions is because of that economic impact, so one could argue that (most) athletes are expected to be full pay in terms of their economic value to the college.