I'm seeing exaggerated takes on the legal impact of a trial judge's ruling in Sorsby v. NCAA. This is not the 9th Circuit in O'Bannon v. NCAA, or SCOTUS in NCAA v. Alston. This case doesn't set precedent for other courts or athletes. It's a non-final order by a state court judge.
The Brendan Sorsby ruling is not a final order in his case (it’s an injunction) and governs one county in Texas. It doesn't require judges in other counties, let alone other states, to rule similarly in similar cases. It’s significant, but shouldn’t be overstated in legal impact.