NIL is only part of it. The House Settlement approved revenue sharing of up to $20 meeeeeellion for each institution. Obviously smaller schools don't generate nearly the revenue of the big boys: Georgia, Texas, Ohio State, LSU, Bama, Michigan, Penn State etc.
School can divide that any way they choose among the sports programs. Football will get a lion share followed by hoops and the rest will be allocated among baseball, women's hoops, gymnastics, softball, etc. I think most schools have developed their own internal system for a salary scale for athletes. You can imagine a college quarterback is going to get slotted at a much higher value than other positions.
NIL however has been ungoverned and strayed far from its original intent: players could do signings, appear in ads, get revenue from jersey sales or other memorabilia. The colleges have agreed to an independent clearinghouse for NIL deals to determine whether they meet fair market value.
Still, there is no "salary cap" so the system gives an unfair advantage to schools with wealthier donor pools. The system has also changed the competitive balance in that schools that were "also rans" but who have big donor bases can now go out and get athletes that would previously only go to the traditional powers. Texas Tech, for example, just received a commitment from a 5 start DL, for a compensation of $5.1 meeeellion over several years. SMU is believed to have rallied their wealthy alums to do whatever it takes to be aa national power in football. We're talking banking, oil billionaires. The coaches want a salary cap. Notre Dame has gotten its mojo back partially because it can now buy players via NIL. That's one reason their recruiting has improved.
There is talk of players becoming employees rather than student-athletes and collective bargaining.
Some coaches have postulated that, at some point, the players won't have to be enrolled in school. In fact, that was said openly at the Big12 media days this week.
College sports as you knew it is dead.