If you can’t define what a booster is, and you can’t understand how a business could steer a recruit to a school that would benefit them, and if you don’t understand why it makes a difference that a player couldn’t get an endorsement after they left school, then maybe you don’t belong in the convo.
Would it be ok for Phil Knight to pay $10k for the autographed pictures of any 5 star players who sign with Oregon? What about if all the members of the Nike board agreed to too? Would it be ok for Nike to sign them to an endorsement deal if they go to Oregon, or any other Nike school for that matter? How would that be different? Remember, the law does not allow for a player to endorse a product that competes with the schools sponsor, so they would have to go to a Nike school if they sign a deal with Nike.
If you can't define what a booster is, then I guess you really don't belong in the convo. So just feel free to continue running around like Chicken Little yelling about how the sky is falling.
As for Nike and other apparel companies that are providing equipment for the schools, it seems like common sense that they wouldn't be able to participate.
Additionally, the point behind them getting endorsements in college and putting all or part in a trust is so that they would already have the money when they leave school. Not wait until after they leave to start earning it.
As @socaljim242 pointed out, the scholarship was a great deal back in the day. But now, college football is a billion dollar business and everyone is getting rich except the people doing most of the work.