I’m no legal expert, but it seems to me the root issue of the Jenkins vs. NCAA case is the classic argument that the NCAA is exploiting its athletes. The four athletes who serve as plantiffs in the class-action lawsuit claim that they should be compensated because they generate an extreme amount of revenue for the NCAA and that the NCAA holds little interest in maintaining their amateurism as STUDENT-athletes. The case then goes into defining the terms, allegations, etc.
I think there are a lot of interesting stories that could stem from this. Should college athletes be paid is an age-old debate that always sparks interest, but that is the obvious route. This case could call into question the rules set for playing in professional leagues. To enter the NFL, players must play in college for three years. If an athlete does not have the financial means to do so, they could be missing out on an opportunity, likewise with basketball players.
Another interesting discussion that could stem from this case is whether the NCAA or the schools should profit the most from ticket sales, television deals, etc. If individual schools profited as much as the NCAA did, many schools could afford facility renovations, more staff, etc.
Note: The NCAA makes a ton of money from marketing the men’s basketball tournament, but actually the majority of funds flow through conferences. Schools in the power 5 conferences get roughly half their revenue from conference and NCAA media deals and the other half locally (primarily ticket sales and donations). Outside the power 5, there’s much less revenue from both sources.