I actually think there is a long term monetary reduction that is not being considered by players. Ill explain:
When a player commits to a program, the vast majority of program fans closely follow their career, we become emotionally attached to them, and their success. We watch them grow, improve, and share in all the memories the program produces over the next 4-5 years. When a player remains at their initial program, they nurture a strong foundation of a following in that period. People who will support their life's endeavors, far beyond their athletic career.
Whenever a player transfer, they practically erase 3-4 years of building a passionate following of supporters, which can be monetized in multiple ways. A transfer is rarely ever followed as closely or even remembered, from the new program fans. They simply dont have the emotional investment the initial program followers have...
In essence, they are undermining 2-4 years of networking, which has far higher monetary value then some short money paid by a booster to get them to fill a position of need for a year. Simply put, the new program fans, simply wont support them as they would a player who originally committed to them, who played their entire career there...
A win/win, would be to allow players to transfer, without losing a redshirt, while still required to sit out a year. That is a solid middle ground that solves all problems and offers value to the players, without compromising NCAA sports. Its a logical option, that somehow NCAA just overlooked with all their expensive education.