[81alum]

.
Receiving payment from someone for the use of one’s image is right.  
Receiving payment from someone to play at less than one’s full capability is wrong.

I think the issue is that NIL payments are often not genuinely about the use of one's image, but are instead simply a venue for bribery and corruption.  For the really famous athletes who can actually contribute to marketing campaigns in a meaningful way, yes, payments for the use of their image is "genuine" but that is a very small part of the NIL system.  Texas Aggies United is not exactly playing that game.

[81alum]

.
Receiving payment from someone for the use of one’s image is right.  
Receiving payment from someone to play at less than one’s full capability is wrong.

I think the issue is that NIL payments are often not genuinely about the use of one's image, but are instead simply a venue for bribery and corruption.  For the really famous athletes who can actually contribute to marketing campaigns in a meaningful way, yes, payments for the use of their image is "genuine" but that is a very small part of the NIL system.  Texas Aggies United is not exactly playing that game.