He got his name in the credits. The question was if he is owed anything else. The contract he created says he was not. I’m simply suggesting he might need a different contract.
You have evidence of this? Because it would be my first guess that the parent coerces their child to sell the ball.
However, my home team is the Dodgers, so the experience is probably different in other markets where the local team sucks and nobody cares about the players (like the Anaheim Angels, where fans are more likely to throw the ball back onto the field than keep them).
So the ONLY thing the license asked for is to be named and that was supposedly violated. So a multi million dollar company can just violate a generous license and then after a fact cling to this exact license while arguing to not pay a single cent more than the license asked for. Alright...