[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by MissionMaximus

Just doesn't make since to me. I know I read what Roadman posted. EA pays the NFLPA in order to use each NFL Players likeness in game but can't put THEIR tattoos in the game because it's owned by the tattoo artist. Maybe I need to look closer for that tm logo on each players tat's next time. Sounds like EA is just scared of another lawsuit is the main reason plus the fact they use the same 3 body types for each player that they've used in like forever. Answer me this why does NBA2k have them? Hell NBAlive even has them. Maybe NBA2k also has an agreement with the TPAU (Tattoo Parlor Association Union) #tattoogate

The NBAPA deal covers tattoos while the NFLPA deal doesnt. What that means is if a tattoo artist sued EA for tattoos being in NBA Live, the NBAPA would indemnify EA and pay for all costs related to the suit. The NFLPA isnt obligated to do that under their deal.

If I ran EA I would do the same thing they are doing. While I'm all for authenticity, EA has no protection against a tattoo artist suing them. I'd also argue that tattoos arent as prominent and important as the NBA. If Lebron didnt have his tattoos in NBA Live, people would lose their ****.**** they would lose their **** if Chris Andersen didnt have his tats.

If Manti Teo doesnt have his tattoos, most people are like...meh. If thats the typical reaction, why risk a lawsuit?