[Goose]

.
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.

Even in cases where the NIL payments are "genuine", it is clear that the financial relationship allows the possibility of abuse by the payer or his representatives. It could take the form of a polite, friendly request or it could be an outright threat to not renew the NIL if the player doesn't comply. That doesn't mean that "genuine" NIL agreements should be banned, but IMO it does mean there is indeed a risk of improper influence.

[Goose]

.
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.

Even in cases where the NIL payments are "genuine", it is clear that the financial relationship allows the possibility of abuse by the payer or his representatives. It could take the form of a polite, friendly request or it could be an outright threat to not renew the NIL if the player doesn't comply. That doesn't mean that "genuine" NIL agreements should be banned, but IMO it does mean there is indeed a risk of improper influence.