The case goes over history of NCAA violations with antitrust laws, what schools can and cannot offer to students and recruits, specifics about awards/losing amateur status, it goes over over bowl games, and NFL/NBA eligibility to name a few.
It then goes into how these athletes could never truly be compensated monetarily for what their schools and the NCAA have benefitted from using their talents.
Jenkins is arguing that athletes should receive compensation for the work they put in and that the current athletic scholarship model hinders that.
As far as potential stories go, the fact that only a handful of schools from the power five conferences win national championships is a big one. Another avenue to explore is recruiting and how much of it is done under the table and how the NCAA could be better at policing it.
Another story, obviously, is the compensation of athletes, which I whole heartedly disagree with. While I see the point the case makes that some of these athletes will never have a professional career post-college, I still believe that in order to have an amateur status, college athletes should not be paid. If they were, anarchy would ensue.
It’s not fair if you pay a basketball player more than a runner. And then contracts would be negotiated, agents would get involved, and athletes would go from high school to the “corporate world” right away and more often than not, not know how to handle it. College prepares athletes for the pro-world.