Agreed on the bolded. Travis Hunter doesn't need a union to get the compensation he's after. To him, I'm sure a union seems to be a potential hindrance, rather than a benefit. And with the limited years of eligibility, and the prospect of leaving early for the NFL, it's even less beneficial.
This has always been the deal with college athletes organizing and collectively bargaining. If you do it as college athletes as a whole, very few have NIL value of significance, whether we're talking actual NIL or pay to play. Most are a net cost to the university. But yes, the few big names in FB and MBB would stand to potentially lose a ton and would be against it.
Realistically there are some football players that have legit NIL and pay to play value. There are some men's BBall with both. In the SEC there are some baseball players with pay to play value. There are a handful of athletes in other sports that have some pay to play value. There are some female athletes that have a lot of NIL value on social media.
But for a majority of student-athletes sacrificing or limiting NIL in exchange for a decent stipend or salary represents a huge improvement over even the current wild west NIL market.
So a football program and mens bball program might be split on a collective bargaining agreement that does that. But it still might be a benefit. A minority of those are probably getting significant NIL/pay to play money. Student-athletes as a whole across all sports would probably sign up for that swap in a heartbeat.
But at this point trying to make that swap of employment for some limitations or better definitions of NIL is probably not happening.