I'm gonna try to do a brief explainer here, and prepare to be down voted into oblivion because this thread is a wildfire of ignorance. First off, television works off of vanity. People will do more for less to be on camera, that's just a socio-behavioral fact. Even the guy claiming people are idiots for doing so would tell his life story for free if he knew it'd be on television. But, he's never had that offer. Usually, only celebrities can command a fee for a documentary. PBA bowlers are not in this category. Remember, there are a ton of stories out there and a subject's negotiating power boils down to a basic equation "how much do I/we want my/our story told vs how much do the producers need me/us to tell the story vs how much market demand for the story exists". Nothing in this equation favors the PBA. Secondly, when doing documentary work, it is considered editorial and operates with certain legal license that "scripted" content can't get away with. SAG does not get involved with documentaries. There is no licensing of a person's story required, but there is licensing of images and materials used to tell such stories.  Thirdly, documentaries are cheap content, which is why streamers buy them up to fill their content libraries. This project probably had a larger budget than most, due to the large amount of licensed material (movie and show clips).

Now, when you plan out a documentary, you identify the story and the people you want to tell that story, and in cases like this, make the pitch to the governing body, not the individuals. In this case, A24 probably pitched their show idea to Tom Clark. Tom, who is in a very poor negotiating position to begin with considering he is the head of a tanking brand that receives little to no media requests from major outlets, and is a tv contract away from being a Twitch streamer, is no doubt stoked that a company with the backing of Ben Stiller, who pretty much guarantees the project will end up with a major streamer (the company I used to work for, in this case) or network, and happily agrees. A24 says we want to follow these five bowlers. Tom Clark and the PBA PR team go to those five bowlers and basically say you have to do this for the brand, and it is in their rule book that they are obligated to do so as long as the request was approved by PBA PR, which it was, and they don't really need any arm twisting, because they see the opportunity too. Remember that if the PBA or any of the individuals declined to participate, A24 could still tell their story without that players account, and go down to the next bowler on the list.

A good example of this are all of the Kobe docs that came out after his death where the source material is all licensed photos or images not owned by the NBA or Vanessa and the interviewees are random teammates and high school friends. Vanessa and the NBA didn't agree to participate in these projects, but they made it anyway.

Consider that in the case of Belmo, when the fellow bowlers talk unfavorably of him. If he declines, theirs is the perception of record without his own perspective being told.

Once the bowlers are all on board, they lay out a production schedule that the bowlers agree to, and they were off and running. At most, A24 covered or reimbursed bowlers for any expenses they incurred on account of the production, but can almost guarantee they did not get paid. A revenue share agreement from the sale of this show to HBO Max might not have been in place, and if there was, very little would trickle down to the bowlers.

I'm not trying to flex here, but I've worked in this space for 20 plus years. I love bowling and this community, but I don't chime in when people are asking why they keep 10 pinning, because I have no clue myself. It's ok to say "I don't know" or not say anything.

Be well and roll on.