The bright lights of television have a way of turning real lives into storylines. And sometimes these stories just blow up. As for these six former junior college football players, a documentary series that captivated audiences showcased the desperation, triumph, and struggle of these athletes fighting for one last shot at glory. Turns out, behind the cinematic drama and underdog narratives, there was exploitation, misrepresentation, and a financial windfall that never reached their pockets. They are now seeking $30 million in a lawsuit that claims they were portrayed inaccurately on the Netflix docuseries “Last Chance U.”

At the center of this legal battle is East Mississippi Community College, the football powerhouse that served as the backdrop of the docuseries. The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles earlier this month, alleges that EMCC, along with Netflix, the National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA), and production company Conde Nast, capitalized on the names, images, and likenesses of six former players without compensating them.

The athletes who played at EMCC during the 2015 and 2016 seasons argue they were “duped” into signing away their publicity rights at a time when college athletes had no legal avenue to profit from NIL deals. What was framed as an inside look at their lives, they claim, was instead a manipulated portrayal that harmed their reputations while enriching everyone else.

“Plaintiffs were misled and unaware of the potential commercial value the footage had,” the lawsuit said. “However, defendants were aware of the high probability the documentary would turn into a highly profitable production.” John Franklin III, one of the plaintiffs, knows all too well how “Last Chance U” shaped public perception.

The former quarterback, who began his college career at Florida State before transferring to EMCC, went on to play at Auburn and Florida Atlantic before making brief stops in the NFL. Franklin was initially intrigued by the idea of challenging the legality of how the show used his and his teammates’ likenesses, leading him to attorney Andrew Green.

Soon, others joined, including Ronald Ollie and Isaiah Wright, two of the show’s most recognizable figures. They and others contend the defendants that they “damaged the players’ reputations to boost viewership” of the show, casting them as “‘villains’ for the audience to despise.” For the production team, that formula worked. Last Chance U became a cultural phenomenon, praised for its raw depiction of football’s unforgiving path to the next level. But as the players see it, that success came at their expense.

The lawsuit details how East Mississippi Community College allegedly profited through increased merchandise sales and exposure while the production company behind the series secured lucrative deals with Netflix. The athletes, however, saw nothing—not a dime, not even the ability to control how they were portrayed. Worse yet, they argue that their depictions were not just unfair but “misleading, offensive, or highly objectionable.”

At the time of the show’s filming, NCAA and NJCAA players were barred from earning money off their name, image, and likeness, a restriction that has since been lifted following the landmark 2021 NIL ruling. But the lawsuit raises a crucial question: does that mean past injustices should be ignored?

And as college football continues to evolve into a NIL-fueled business, their case could set a precedent for how past misuses of player likeness are handled.

The legal battle behind Last Chance U

Netflix, EMCC Football themselves, the National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA), production company Conde Nast, and the executive producer of “Last Chance U” were listed as defendants in the case. Attorney John Pierce, who’s representing the players, didn’t hold back in the lawsuit. He argues that the show didn’t just document their journey—it manipulated their stories, invaded their privacy, and capitalized on their struggles without fair compensation.

Pierce wrote, “Make no mistake, each of the defendants have been unjustly enriched by intruding upon the private lives of the plaintiffs, taking unfair advantage of them through defendants’ superior bargaining power, manipulating many of plaintiffs’ characters, along with other means of their own financial gain while sacrificing any decent reputation plaintiffs had.”

Essentially, the players feel like they were cast as characters in a reality drama rather than being portrayed as real people fighting for a shot at football redemption. Netflix and the other defendants did not provide a comment yet.