If players are unionized, they are then employees, right?
What keeps them from, say, quitting at halftime to join the other team? Or going on strike in the third quarter? Is a collective bargaining agreement the way to prevent such things, and can it withstand legal challenges?
What about non work-related employee rules? Can a school require a certain GPA or class attendance, since the players are there for "football, not for school"?
Does this apply to all students at all schools, or is there a way for schools to "opt-out" and form a new amateur association?
Setting aside the greed/money which is the root of all this, how does paying athletes make the sport of college football better? Perhaps more just, but better for the fans, the players, the universities, and the sport in general. College football became so popular because it was different. No sport remains forever popular: one hundred years ago, baseball, boxing, and college football were kings. Only one remains.
Finally, how does all this play out with respect to the fact we're dealing with relatively immature people here. It's one thing to talk about CBAs and player unions with professionals who understand their livelihood is at stake, and they have an individual professional reputation to protect. These kids? We have seen how the loosened recruiting rules have turned into a charade first with a hat-dance and videos, now with secret NIL deals and threatened lawsuits.
Much of the discussion focuses on justice for the players, who have been used and abused as the schools and networks and coaches got rich. Got it, and it need to be fixed. But when we're done, it seems to me we're heading headlong into a semi-pro league, not college football.
I realize that is more of a problem for old-times like me. I gradually lost interest in each professional sport as they became both fairer to the players and more mercenary. Maybe that doesn't matter any more, or maybe it does.