You are misreading the results. The fact that 17% of the participants collect 90% o the winnings is proof that they are games of skill. The most skilled players win the most money.
This is also the case in the season-long games which were legally challenged back in the mid-nineties. Basically, the same people won them every year.
The season-long games eventually proved their case and their legality was accepted. Since the scoring is basically the same, the rules are basically the same and only the term of competition has been changed -- from one season to one day (or one week) -- there is no reason why these games aren't legal, too.
Why would this be evidence of skill vs. luck? Why wouldn't the luckiest players win the most money?
Like I said, I know nothing about these sites, don't care to know anything about these sites, and really could care less how the rulings go down on these sites, because I will never participate in playing on the sites
Just regurgitating what I found out trying to do a little research on these sites since their ads had become more pervasive on TV & radio.