Pay for play is: here is your money for last week's game; here is your money for last week's statistics; here is your money for next month's game against State; here is your money for next month's statistics.
(To date, with legit contracts) NIL != PfP. Full stop. Does the likelihood of or reality of playing at school X change the market for NIL? Of course. No one is arguing otherwise. But don't be fatuous and say that Burnt Ends payments to tight ends that (1) don't even see the field during the contract year, (2) do, in fact have a contract (not with the school), and (3) fulfill the terms of their contract are PfP.
If you interpret financial benefit that is associated with being a member in good standing of the football squad (especially a promising one at a position of need) as pay-for-play, then you have tautologically created your own conclusion. When you define something as more or less than it is, you can create or banish it quite easily.
Some NIL will be motivated by love of school, some by love of publicity, some by market analysis and choice of profitable publicity. If the average UT student could demonstrably do a commercial that helped sell product X, he would get a contract. Does NIL get canceled for season-ending injury? If no, I guess it isn't PfP. If you see pointing out nuance as dissimulation, you will never be convinced.