Unequal revenue sharing has its pluses and minuses. I get the positives, but there are negative too. If every conference has it, it means the conferences with the most valuable properties get the most on average. If you are a top program in a conference that is getting less (meaning you are someone like USC or Oklahoma getting less than Vanderbilt), there is then a major incentive to leave for another conference.
The PAC-12 went from one of the least sharing of revenue equally in the early 2010s to one of the most (even into areas the Big Ten doesn't split it). That would have worked great if the PAC-16 idea had worked, but as it turned out, you had your most valuable schools falling behind peers and know they could make it up by switching conferences. That didn't happen overnight, but if USC/UCLA were getting paid more the last decade for the value they brought, it would have been a harder decision to decide to leave now.
Looking at other examples, the Mountain West kept Boise State from going to the American in the last round with an unequal deal. That also kept San Diego State out which left the conference as the clear 2nd best Group of 5 conference. There were other defection risks too which would have arisen if that first big domino had moved. Meanwhile, the Big 12 in the 2010s was mostly equal, but allowed 3rd tier rights to stay with the schools which kept Texas around for another decade and a half. Sure they are leaving in the end, but that time did matter to the schools who wouldn't have moved with Texas. It also kept the Big 12 around which has helped multiple new teams find places in a power conference.