Oklahoma City Thunder guard Shai Gilgeous-Alexander has reportedly sent a cease-and-desist letter to Underdog Sports over the company's board game Unethical Hoops, which features a character named Shai that closely resembles the NBA star. According to The Athletic, the letter demands that Underdog permanently cease using Gilgeous-Alexander's name in any media and destroy all copies of the game. Underdog had previously held a contest to give away 100 copies of the game and enlisted Phoenix Suns forward Dillon Brooks for a promotional video.

The 'Unethical Hoops' Game and the 'Shai' Character

The board game, described as a play on Operation,tasks players with performing surgical procedures on a cartoon basketball player. The character named Shai is depicted with a similar hairstyle and jersey number as Gilgeous-Alexander, according to the source. The Athletic reports that the game's name itself is a clear nod to the criticism the Thunder star faces for his foul-baiting style.

Legal experts note that using a celebrity's name and likeness without permission, especially in a commercial prduct, can violate the right of publicity—a legal principle that varies by state but generally protects individuals from unauthorized commercial exploitation. The resemblance here is more than coincidental, which may give Gilgeous-Alexander a strong case.

Dillon Brooks' Promotional Video Cameo

The involvement of Phoenix Suns forward Dillon Brooks in a promotional video for Unethical Hoops adds a layer of irony. Brooks himself is known for physical defense and has had run-ins with Gilgeous-Alexander on the court. According to The Athletic, Brooks appeared in the video endorsing the game, effectively linking his own persona to the product.

This raises questions about whether Underdog Sports attempted to secure any permissions from Brooks or whether they relied on the same unlicensed approach.. If Underdog lacked consent from Brooks as well, the company could face multiple legal challenges. the video also suggests the game was marketed as a legitimate product, not a one-off parody.

100 Copies and a Contest: The Scale of the Dispute

Underdog Sports held a contest to give away 100 physical copies of Unethical Hoops, indicating that the game was more than a conceptual joke—it was a distributed product with tangible reach. The Athletic reports that the company produced the physical board game and actively promoted it.

This scale matters in a legal context: a single prototype might be dismissed as satire, but manufacturing and distributing 100 copies moves the activity into commercial territory. the demand for destruction of all copies—not just removal of the character—signals that Gilgeous-Alexander's camp views this as a serious infringement requiring drastic remedy.

What the Cease and Desist Demands: Destruction of All Copies

The cease-and-desist letter, as reported by The Athletic, goes beyond a typical request to stop use. It explicitly demands that Underdog destroy all copies of the game. This is an unusually aggressive demand, often reserved for cases where the infringing item is seen as inherently damaging to the plaintiff's brand or could be easily re-sold.

Gilgeous-Alexander's lawyers are likely trying to prevent any secondary market for the game and to set a precedent that unauthorized use of his image will be met with maximum legal force. Underdog did not respond to The Athletic's request for comment, leaving open the question of whether they will comply or fight the demand.

Foul-Baiting Reputation Meets Image Rights

The editorial premise of Unethical Hoops is directly tied to Gilgeous-Alexander's reputation for drawing fouls—a tactic that works but draws criticism for flopping. According to the source, the game satirizes this aspect of his play. However, the question remains: does satire protect Underdog from an infringement claim?

Courts often distinguish between parody that comments on a public figure and commercial use that merely trades on their fame. Here, the game is sold for profit and uses a character named Shai with a clear resemblance, which weighs against a parody defense. The outcome of this dispute will be closely watched by the sports industry as it may clarify how far companies can go in referencing NBA players without license.