That only applies to the NCAA if the NCAA continues to operate in California. If they decide that their current rules are more important than the participation of California schools, they can leave the state and prevent their member schools from playing in California or with teams from California and avoid California's legal jurisdiction.

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 if you're from CA", which is not true because the bill outlaws those rules.

The 4th option that they're suggesting only serves to open them up to lawsuits should they ever try to enforce the rule for CA players.

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."

Then the bill violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and is illegal.

https://openjurist.org/10/f3d/633/national-collegiate-athlet...

Not by the arguments put forth in that decision. The key bit on the Nevada law is stated in paragraph 21:

> By its terms, it regulates only interstate organizations, i.e., national collegiate athletic associations which have member institutions in 40 or more states.

Nevada made the mistake of specifically targeting interstate associations. California does not, so based on the reasoning in that decision the California law does not violate the Commerce Clause per se as the Nevada law did.

You either didn't fully read or don't comprehend what you read.

The NCAA engages in interstate commerce. California's bill requires that any organization that does business in California allow players in California to be paid. It is requiring the NCAA to provide a carve-out for California.

This is the exact same scenario, legally.