It's not really a matter of superseding. The NCAA and its constituent institutions been found liable for an antitrust violation in the form of colluding with rules that prevented athletes from profiting from their own NIL. NIL is but one of the potential revenue sources that the NCAA deprived student athletes of profiting from. It was a convenient one because it was relatively easily tied to individual student athletes.
But giving student athletes the right to harvest their own NIL revenue doesn't solve the entire problem, which is that the NCAAs "amateurism" rules prevented athletes from sharing revenue for which they/their labor was undoubtedly responsible. However, unlike NIL, quantifying the athlete's proper share of any such revenue, either on a collective or individual basis, is quite difficult.
Thus, we have this proposed settlement, which, apart and aside from any NIL revenue the athletes can generate "on their own," somewhat arbitrarily sets their share of revenue at 22%. And I think part of the settlement is a de facto antitrust exemption: that the amateurism rules have been abolished, there's now a revenue-sharing framework in place, and there will be no further antitrust suits.