A discussion I was listening to on the radio - which I believe included a law professor - indicated the motive for unionizing the student athletes DIDN'T include actually "paying" them. He felt their focus was more related to having a voice at the table when topics like "medical benefits" for student atheletes were discussed; specifically injured players and continuing care.
Maybe another topic would be the inclusion of a mandatory spring game like they have at Wisconsin. A players union may take issue with that for one reason or another. Right now, I don't think the athletes themselves have a say or not in that additional committment.
The matter rests on the decision of whether they are students or whether they are employees, the latter possible because their efforts result in financial gain for the institution.
I think if you actually cut them a check for "playing football", their amateur status would be affected the way the system works today - which would lead to a whole 'nother court case I would guess.
