The core issue: is fantasy sports a game of chance or a game of skill? The UIGEA definition says, Skill. The problem is that, when it comes to daily fantasy sports (DFS), a skill versus chance argument is a gross generalization of the issue.
When fantasy football players think about making the leap to baseball, there is one common response: "Oh. My. God. I have to do this for 162 games?" They conclude that fantasy baseball is for diehards only and then they go find something else to do.
The conventional wisdom is that "kickers don't really matter"..."they are too unpredictable"...and "just get anyone from a pretty good offense, especially if they play in a dome or a warm weather city." I couldn't disagree more.
From a fantasy perspective, it doesn't matter if a player was a steroids user or if he never merited serious consideration for Cooperstown. All that matters is whether his statistical performances helped his fantasy teams during his career.
As I have jumped into fantasy sports this year for the first time, I found myself watching the game differently. I wonder what would happen if we applied this same kind of lens to those things that we church folks so easily demonized every day.
If you see that an MLB player in fantasy baseball is showing numbers that are significantly better than they have done in their career, or seem too good for their age, you should brace yourself for the possibility that the numbers could be chemically enhanced.
A Federal Court of Appeals ruled that MLA cannot charge Fantasy Baseball Leagues licensing fees for using statistics and likeness of its players. That they sued fans in the first place is beyond the pale.