The push to reject the settlement, though, faces an uphill battle. There is no precise number of retirees who must oppose the deal before it is rejected. That is for the judge to determine, and in this case, Paul Magnuson of the United States District Court in Minnesota has made it unusually clear that he believes the players should accept the settlement.

“It bears repeating: the individuals who originally brought this lawsuit and who now oppose the settlement rode into court on the banner of saving their downtrodden brethren, those who had played in the N.F.L. yet today were penniless and, often, suffering from injuries or illnesses directly related to their playing days,” Magnuson wrote when approving the settlement in April. “It is the height of disingenuousness for these same plaintiffs to now complain, like children denied dessert, that the settlement does not benefit enough the individuals who brought the lawsuit.”

Then there is inertia. In this case, the retirees will be considered to have approved the settlement if they do nothing, yet they must respond if they want to object or opt out of the settlement. In many class-action suits, plaintiffs also tend to approve settlements because some money is better than no money, especially if they have financial problems.

“When you’re dealing with plaintiffs with immediate health and economic needs, they are willing to discount the value of their claims for an immediate payout,” said Jodi Balsam, a former lawyer for the N.F.L. who now teaches at New York Law School.

The retirees also must ask whether opting out of the settlement, which would entitle them to sue the league individually, is a better strategy than accepting the deal now, especially because the judge made clear they may only seek damages on images dating to 2003.

“We agree with the judge’s decision and reasoning that the structure of the settlement is a thoughtful solution and a win for everyone,” said Gary Gertzog, the senior vice president for legal and business affairs at the N.F.L. “There is not a comparable alternative solution. The players have to evaluate if they have a valid claim, and if so, is it valuable enough to pay an attorney to pursue it?”

The Dryer plaintiffs are merely the latest in a line of athletes and performers who have sued to recoup what they perceive to be lost revenue from the use of their likenesses. Al Gionfriddo, a former Brooklyn Dodger, and several other former players sued Major League Baseball more than a decade ago, arguing that they should be compensated for appearing in archival footage shown on television. The league won.