How about if we go on what Mr. Sandman himself said
His statements have been pretty vague. They probably have to be as part of the settlement (see Stelter being in hot water).
The statement from his attorney was, if anything, rather conciliatory:
"Nicholas Sandmann agreed to settle with the Post because the Post was quick to publish the whole truth—through its follow-up coverage and editor's notes," Sandmann's attorney, Todd McMurtry, said in an email. "The terms of the settlement are confidential"
It's pretty clear from his statement the other day that he considers it to be a victory, so who are we to say that it was NOT a victory for him?
No one here has said it was NOT a victory, I just think declaring it went one way or the other without knowing
any of the details is foolish.
Calling the Washington Post "his BI***" would be a lot more convincing if he had received a public apology or significant amount of money or both.
Melania Trump settled for $3 million and a public apology after the Daily Mail insinuated she was a prostitute, if Sandmann had gotten that there would be no question it was a win.