IMHO It will force three things: (1) decision to be a "pro" school, (2) union, and (3) "equal pay".

To your question, there's been some noise in cases where a school (e.g., Oregon) has incurred costs to promote a player for the Heisman, and there hasn't been equal promotion for women's sports players. Provision of remediation is analogous, although there may be some mischief if it is structured as a revenue share as opposed to wage for work. I believe you can differentiate in certain elements of the operation of the sport based on the inherent costs and necessities of the sport (hence the likely need for a union), but technically you are supposed to provide ancillary benefits on a non-discriminatory basis.

So, in reality, I think there will be a union-negotiated base wage for participation, and then stars will be compensated extra outside of the ordinary compensation structure, and revenue sharing may be the X factor if they can get past the Title IX issue.. You can probably make an argument that FBALL and BBALL players should make more relative to say gymnasts on a pure base wage basis (think scholarships for those sports versus others), since there's a professional league and a ready made market for their skills.

Anyway, this all strikes me as kabuki theater. In 10 years, there will be licensed college pro teams. I don't see how these kids can be students and athletes anymore.