Looks like the take is, they are paying the players NIL/marketing campaigns, not for playing football. Two separate things. I don't see how a state can pass a law which has any bearing on the NCAA, but like BL says, it's a member run organization.
"Williams said this was "maybe a distinction without a difference, but there's a distinction there.""
Williams was referring to Title 9.
But I don't know why we're even having this discussion when the NCAA was sued by states that had passed laws allowing students to receive NIL, and the NCAA relented.
That's how NIL came to be in the first place.
It's weird that we're speculating on whether something can happen -- and it already happened 2 years ago.
That article was also discussing whether students who receive money could be employees. This is settled law. The NLRB and the courts have already ruled on this. They are considered employees.
If this was somehow reversed, you're opening a big channel for all contracts between universities and contingent employees.