FanDuel, MLBPA Settle NIL Suit

The Major League Baseball Players Association (MLPBA) settled litigation with FanDuel over the sportsbook operator’s alleged unauthorized use of union members’ name, image, and likeness (NIL).

In September, the union representing the league’s athletes in New York and Philadelphia courts, claiming that the operators were using images of Major Baseball (MLB) players on their sports betting platforms without the consent of the union and without compensating those athletes.

A copy of the settlement between FanDuel and the union indicates the suit was dismissed with prejudice, meaning the MLBPA cannot renew the same litigation at a later date.

(The union and FanDuel) shall each bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with this matter,” according to a copy of the settlement.

The professional baseball labor group acknowledged the agreement, but hasn’t commented further on the matter.

When the MLBPA litigation was revealed in September, FanDuel was one of four gaming companies the union was targeting. The others were bet365, DraftKings, and Underdog Fantasy. FanDuel and Underdog Fantasy were sued by the union in the New York State Supreme Court. It’s not yet clear if Underdog has been removed from that suit.

The MLBPA’s suit against bet365 and DraftKings was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As of yet, there is no word on any settlement pertaining to that litigation, but it’s possible the settlement with FanDuel could pave the way for similar agreements to be reached.

That could be to the benefit of all parties involved, particularly to one of the aforementioned sportsbook operators that is on multiple fronts.

Athletes’ NIL is their equivalent of intellectual property, and professional leagues’ player unions are looking to protect those rights. Said another way, while it’s common for athletes to appear in advertisements for any number of companies – plenty for sportsbook operators – they’re compensated for doing so.

The root of the MLBPA’s suit against the aforementioned quartet of gaming companies was the claim that the operators used images of nearly all of the players in MLB to entice customers to make player proposition wagers. The union claimed that neither it nor its members were compensated for the use of the athlete images.

For professional athletes, the ability to control the commercial use of their names, images, and likenesses is a crucial return on their substantial career investment,” said the union in the original suit.

In asserting that the “flagrant” misuse of athletes’ images could harm their long-term earnings potential, the MLBPA also claimed that given the highly statistical nature of baseball, which borders on nerdy and wonky, it was unnecessary for the gaming companies to use player images to compel bettors to make prop wagers.