My reading of the document is that NCAA-style collectives (think booster clubs) are not allowed to enter into NIL deals with student-athletes.  But an individual business (car dealership, grocery store, etc) can enter into an NIL deal with a student-athlete.  And as long as the owner of the individual business does not work "collectively" with other individual business owners, they are in the clear, even if they are all in the same booster club.  How this is going to be policed is beyond me.    

I just got back from some time away and haven't had the chance to digest what the FHSAA did.  However, last time I read through the proposal, my interpretation was that kids could cut NIL deals, but schools (including their boosters) couldn't have anything to do with the NIL arrangement.   In other words, boosters wouldn't be able to use NIL as a means of keeping existing kids or 'attracting' new talent.  Someone jump in if that's not what the FHSAA ultimately ended up adopting.   And, yes, enforcement is going to be a bear.  Clearly, the camel is now halfway into the tent and from my perspective, what's inside the tent doesn't look all that good. 

Which players?

The biggest beneficiaries will be the "PRIVATES" (as if they didn't have enough advantages already) as they have the wealthy donners to pay HC's as well as their many assistants, build facilities, provide meals and now even pay players.  Yes, a few publics in larger/wealthier counties will also benefit but this puts most at an even bigger disadvantage.  Unfortunately, this only feeds the broken system even more as I finally am seeing more coaches at traditionally good public programs call for a separate league for private schools and public schools which I have strongly supported for years.  Several states throughout the country have this system and it looks like more are looking at adopting it. 

A lot of the top schools will benefit from this