From the article...
That is not name, image and likeness, and it is not what the people who have been standing up for players’ rights to profit off their image have been pushing for years.
The problem with CMC's comment is that it's dead wrong. The collectives are permissible and are very much NIL. This is what affording student-athletes the right to profit looks like. They will. Especially with the help of rich programs and programs with a system in place from enriching players illegally for years.
I'm not sure you're interpreting that quite correctly. Pay-for-play and NIL are too very different concepts. Pay-for-play would allow college athletes to be paid something resembling a salary. You are paid to play football by this school. It would undoubtedly be coupled with restrictions, caps, rules, etc.
NIL is not about a school paying them, but rather about them benefiting from their popularity and notoriety.
At some point the line between the two became blurred and I think that's what Campbell is talking about. Once they realized there's really no governing what constitutes NIL, it became its hybrid of pay-for-play, just without any rules, and I'm not sure that's what anyone envisioned wanting.