I'm not expert on collective bargaining in any way shape or form so please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it for the benefit of the masses? Agree top guys wouldn't like it, but I don't think they would have an option if 95% of players demanded it (along with the schools who desperately want and need some rules and order to this madness).I hope so, but I have doubts that all of the athletes will want to form a union, specifically the guys at the top. I don't see a lot of incentive for a guy like Shadeur Sanders to join a union, that would ultimately be limiting for him. Top level guys like him already have lots of power, freedom and value. What does a union membership give them that they don't already have?
I also think that limited eligibility works against the attractiveness of a union. A lot of the long term security that a union provides is negated because players will only be in it for 4-5 years maximum. They could always remove the eligibility cap, but then you're competing against the NFL/NBA for players, and that's not a fight that you would want.
Not saying a union can't or won't happen, but I just don't know that it necessarily is the silver bullet that it's often made out to be.
NIL never goes away, but would become supplementary, not the driver of pay.