Source: https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2018/08/state-action-and-nfl-protests.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:06:12+00:00

Document:
" COLUMN: APPLYING THE CONSTITUTION TO PRIVATE ACTORS (NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL) "
Based on the recognized test of close nexus (what the random district court decision that you randomly quote out of context calls governmental nexus). A private entity acts under color if there is a nexus between government and the challenged conduct, where government coerces, compels, or significantly encourages the private misconduct.
No, one doesn’t. Private persons or entities can act under color pursuant to any of five or six different tests (depending on how we count). An entity need satisfy only one to be subject to constitutional liability. If close nexus could be satisfied, there is no need to consider public function.
Me either Wasserman , I was referring rather to the " under color " issue , but for the latter , one needs at first place to deal with public function . All , not withstanding the tests of the supreme court mentioned there indeed .
Well, then, it is a good thing I did not argue or even suggest that the public function test applied.
compulsion test; and (4) the governmental nexus test.’” Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d1128, 1140 (9th Cir. 2012) (alteration adopted) (quoting Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 444–45(9th Cir. 2002)).Plaintiff contends that Defendants are state actors under the “public function” test. See Compl. ¶ 87 (stating that “Defendants further act as state actors because Defendants and the YouTube site perform an exclusively and traditionally public function”). Under the public function test, “[p]rivate activity becomes a ‘public function’ only if that action has been ‘traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the State.’” Brunette v. Humane Soc’y of Ventura Cty.,294 F.3d 1205, 1214 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 842 (1982)). The United States Supreme Court has stated that “[w]hile many functions have been traditionally performed by governments, very few have been ‘exclusively reserved to the State.’” Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 158 (1978) (quoting Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 352 (1974)). Examples of functions that have been deemed to be “traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the State” include “hold[ing] [public] elections,” “govern[ing] a town,” and “serv[ing] as an international peacekeeping force.” Brunette, 294 F.3d at 1214 (citing Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 484 (1953), Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 507–09 (1946), and Dobyns v. E-Systems, Inc., 667 F.2d 1219, 1226–27 (5th Cir. 1982)).
So , one can't either claim , that managing such league , is a prerogative of the state , or traditionally a state function . So , much more clarifications are needed here it seems .
Interesting , but it doesn't seem like a case of " close Nexus " as defined in that post . For , an act under color , means that the entity has functional public power or official power by law, and under such title , the concrete act itself , is illegal , but seems to be an act correct or falling within the scope of duty of that official power of the public servant .
Suppose a police officer . As such . In night shift . Just patrolling the street . He does come across with his neighbor detested so much by him . He decides to " balance the books " and take a revenge . Detaining him , conducting search on him , all under the false pretext that he has just seen him , stealing something ( so humiliating him publicly ) . The police officer , is indeed one , having general and conceptual power to detain someone , and conducting a search , but , only while having reasonable cause or suspicion , not for illicit personal purposes .So the duty is general and right as such by law prescribed , but the concrete act , is under color , yet illegal .
So , can it be said that such owners of that league , have any official public title or power delegated by law ?? To my best knowledge , not at all !! To my best knowledge they fulfill private function , not public ( although they may have some public duties prescribed by law ) . Anyway , needs further clarifications or specifications it seems .

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.