Just because they call themselves NIL collectives does not mean they actually are. Depends on how NIL gets defined and approved in the future.
In the past NIL was used as pay for play. There was little to no use of the players market value for much of it. There is some valid name and image use out there so not all bad.
As an example, giving all the O-line $50,000 would be pay for play unless they all did the same amount of social media work (with similar follower numbers) , same appearances, autographs, etc⊠Just giving money is pay to play.
If the collective had given them money and required them to visit children;s hospitals once a month, be in the hospitals ads, and promote a certain number of times on social media, that would 100% be Name Image Likeness use. (edit to add: I think this would be a great use of the collectives both for players and the image of the university in their community)
Also one of the other justices did make a statement in closing comments about their decision not being about pay for play, only a students right to work beyond school. Do not remember which one, and I no longer have the link. That simply got hidden away as these big money donors want to have their collectives to pay for their team.