There are two important consequences of a long-awaited ruling last week by a federal judge, Claudia Wilken, in the so-called O’Bannon case. College athletes will almost certainly be better off financially. And the notion that these athletes are pure amateurs — “students first, athletes second” — will be impossible to sustain.

In her 99-page decision, Judge Wilken issued an injunction against a ban on payments to players for the commercial use of their names, images and likenesses, which she said violated antitrust law. She also ruled that college sports’ governing body, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, may not prohibit universities from offering cost-of-living stipends in addition to scholarships.

Judge Wilken’s ruling represents a significant victory for Ed O’Bannon, a former basketball player for the University of California, Los Angeles, and other players like him who until now have been unable to share in the considerable wealth generated by their skill and hard work. Mr. O’Bannon agreed to be the lead plaintiff in a suit arguing that college players had a financial interest in products or advertising that exploited their names and images.

Although the N.C.A.A. is the clear loser here and has already announced plans to appeal, the reach of the decision should not be overstated. Post-O’Bannon, collegiate athletics won’t operate according to free-market principles. Far from it. Players did not win the right to sign endorsement deals. And the N.C.A.A. may cap payments to players at $5,000 per year — comparable to the amount that the N.C.A.A. permits players to receive if they qualify for a Pell grant. Colleges, moreover, may keep these payments in trust until after the players graduate or leave.