That case would have never of had legs if the NCAA had not chosen to profit from NIL of amateur athletes at the same time they restricted the athletes from doing so. It made a farce out of the concept of amateur sports and led to the anti-trust claim.
If it had remained a simple exchange of a free education for the chance to compete in a sport as a true amateur against other true amateurs how strong would the anti-trust claim have been.
The hours that athletes put towards training doesn't begin to compare with the hours of work put in by many paying their own way through school.
Frankly, any claim about a free education not being a fair exchange for competing in one's favorite collegiate sport is bogus.