what time I had to read the decision suggests that it really depends on the following:
"We have held that these rules “define what it means to be an amateur
or a student-athlete, and are therefore essential to the very
existence of” collegiate athletics. Agnew v. Nat’l Collegiate
Athletic Ass’n, 683 F.3d 328, 343 (7th Cir. 2012). The multifac-
tor test proposed by Appellants here simply does not take
into account this tradition of amateurism or the reality of the
student-athlete experience. In short, it “fail[s] to capture the
true nature of the relationship” between student athletes and" Penn.

That is begging the question. Yes, there is a tradition of amateurism but the notion that collegiate athletics in its very concept entails not paying athletes is to determine the answer through that loaded concept. The nature of the activity doesn't establish it is not work: people are sometimes paid for doing track and field. College students are often paid directly for working by colleges without that being incompatible with the very nature of being a student.