3 ms·

Correct, which is option 1 from the parent post. MisterBastahrd seems to believe that the NCAA can just say "you have to follow these rules if you join us even

• MisterBastahrd 7y ago
  This is why the bill is unconstitutional. From Miller vs. NCAA, P 28: 'Under Brown-Forman, 476 U.S. at 579, 106 S.Ct. at 2084, when a state law directly regulates interstate commerce, it can generally be struck down without further inquiry. The Statute directly regulates interstate commerce and runs afoul of the Commerce Clause both because it regulates a product in interstate commerce beyond Nevada's state boundaries, and because it puts the NCAA, and whatever other national collegiate athletic associations may exist, in jeopardy of being subjected to inconsistent legislation arising from the injection of Nevada's regulatory scheme into the jurisdiction of other states. Because the Statute violates the Commerce Clause per se, we need not balance the burden on interstate commerce against the local benefit derived from the Statute.' Replace Nevada with California and you've got the same issue. A state is not allowed to unilaterally make special statutory carve-out demands on a national organization. They can say "hey universities, your student-athletes must be allowed to profit from their own likenesses." Totally within the state's power. They can't say "hey, NCAA, screw your rules, we decided to make up our own for you and you have to deal with it."