This is where I disagree. I don't think the schools should be obligated to provide a salary. These are amateurs, by definition.
That said, if you are popular enough to make money outside of the school, of your own volition, the NCAA has no business stopping you from doing so.
They are unpaid workers providing economic benefit to their employer, the same way that has been federally outlawed most of the other places it was practiced (often also with students) when the rules on unpaid internships were tightened down.
They are amateurs only by circular definition: the trade association of their employers prohibits paying them, so they aren't paid, so they are “amateurs”. Using that as an argument to continue not paying them is ludicrous on it's face.
I get that the players are taken advantage of but so do all of our employers. They aren't slaves, they can try out for professional sports around the world right out of high school and start making money. It will probably be less but they have options.
The one fallout of this is that there are lots of collegiate sports that will go away. They schools won't pay the money for the field hockey team so all the players can get a salary.
All this to say that this is much more grey than a lot of people think it is. I think the right solution is to get rid of college athletics completely. Move it to an intramural setup. All the other leagues can create their own farm systems like baseball has and people can start having minor league NFL and NBA teams in their middle sized towns instead.
So, what you are saying is that the field hockey team wouldn't meet the economic benefit to the school test to determine that they were entitled to pay if rules like those for unpaid internships were applied? And, therefore, wouldn't be covered, at all?
It's not as cut and dry as, they get nothing. The all in spend on a College Football player annually is probably well over $80k.
Well, except for athletics, but that is starting to be seen as problematic, too.