Here's some stuff from Shaggy:
http://www.vox.com/2014/8/10/5985743/ed-obannon-lawsuit-ncaa-college-athletes-paidThe ruling has two major effects:
1 - The NCAA cannot force schools to offer scholarships that cover less than the full cost of attending the university.
2 - The NCAA cannot stop schools from offering recruits up to $5,000 per year in a trust fund for after their eligibility has expired.
However, there were many restrictions on player compensation that could have changed, but didn't. In somewhat of a surprise decision,Wilken wrote that NCAA rules limiting athletes' ability to receive endorsement money while they're in school is a legitimate means of improving competition. The removal of these limits could have severely limited the NCAA's control and brought more outside influence into the recruiting process, but the organization remained relatively unscathed.
But what was odd about Wilken's ruling is that while she found that the NCAA's current limits on athlete compensation are unreasonable — i.e. the product will not suffer — she did find that further compensation, such as athletes receiving endorsements, could be reasonable because it might change too much if some athletes are making a lot of money.
Another route for the NCAA could be to seek an anti-trust exemption from Congress. Typically organizations need to bargain with a labor union and show some flexibility to be considered for an exemption, so it seems unlikely that Congress would permit the NCAA to stay exactly the same. But this approach does have a backing from some conservative representatives. This was evident during the House hearing on unionization and after Congressional Republicans filed a brief to the National Labor Relations Board opposing the Northwestern football players' unionization decision.