Inaugural Ask a Stupid Question Thread

[ALR-bishop]

Topps never had a true monopoly on baseball cards. What they had eventually after Bowman sold itself to Topps at the height of it's ( Bowman's) market value were contracts with players that gave them the exclusive right to sell their likeness with confections ( candy/gum). Other companies could have sold baseball cards by themselves or with other products...like cookies ( Fleer) and marbles ( Leaf). But the market apparently was set around gum back then.

It was Marvin Miller who convinced the players that they should be getting a bigger share of the take and faced Topps down. Eventually MLB itself realized that baseball cards were a product that needed to be part of it's merchandizing machine.

MLB and the player union now control who has the market through thier license agreements, and they surely go with what they think makes them the most money. For now, they believe less product concentrated with fewer producers give them the best situation. Topps, with it's history, and with Eisner's muscle, is the current choice.

I have been collecting since 1957 and was glad when other products hit the market in 1981. But if you look in the SCD Standard Catalog at the growing proliferation of baseball product starting in 1995, I was also glad with the cut back. I realize others may feel differently since everyone approaches the hobby from different perspectives