It doesn't come down to money. Except for some very high profile D1 college football programs, collegiate sports do not make money. They are subsidized from the academic side when you take into account things beyond the obvious (i.e., coaches' salaries) and count things like stadium maintenance and NCAA-required student support services. I would be curious about comparative numbers for lacrosse, rugby, rowing, and field hockey, which are better comparator sports for gymnastics than very popular sports like baseball, football, basketball, soccer, and hockey.
I think that college sports can be a highly valuable piece of baccalaureate education if done properly -- with the recognition that a student-athlete is a student AND an athlete. And in this framework, running good sports programs that are more than just training for professional sports careers for a tiny handful of participants can be part of the legitimate agenda of an institution of higher education. The professionalization, commercialization, and monetization of college sports over the last 30 years has been far more destructive for athletes, universities, and the sports themselves than Title IX. And sports that have remained in that antiquated holistic life learning frame -- gymnastics being the poster sport -- have been the biggest losers.
[Steps off soapbox. Sorry for the rant!]