Basketball is much more prone to big-time player payments because of a myriad of reasons, the main ones being:
1. Basketball players have a "face." The NBA is marketed on individual star power. Shoe companies want to tap into that and leverage their relationship with schools to steer big-time recruits to certain schools and then help said player build his brand as he progresses to the NBA.
2. Fewer players in basketball and one recruit truly can make a big impact. A booster is much more likely to pay Zion Williamson big bucks under the table than to pay, say, Justin Fields (#1 recruit in football in this past cycle). Zion can legitimately turn any team he goes to into a potential national champion. Fields does not have the same impact on the football program he chooses, even though he's a QB. Football is too much of a team game. Now, I'm not saying that boosters don't pay football players. They do. But in general, the high-dollar payments are going to go to basketball recruits who are more important to programs and there's much more scarcity of elite recruits.
To be fair, strum, college basketball is a shadow of its former self. Think about how it used to be, when you were growing up and into your adolescent years and 20s, and now think of how the game is today. If anything, this investigation will help turn college hoops back into what it used to be. The college game was so much better off when guys stayed for multiple years and developed into household names while still in school (like is the case in football). That way, networks can market a Duke - Kansas game as "Star X vs. Star Y" rather than just having to market it as "Duke vs. Kansas," if that makes sense. And it wasn't like it was eons ago that this was the norm. It's only been since about 2010 that it's changed.