Topps to be replaced as the BB Card Manuracturer

[Cmvorce]

I’m legitimately sad about this. A big part of my collecting is about the history of the game and the history of the hobby. The Topps brand is a huge part of that. Off the charts equity. Very sad day in my opinion.

[Cmvorce]

I would imagine Fanatics will now attempt to acquire Topps? Seems like there would be value in maintaining the brand.

[sbfinley]

Sucks. Only positive is there’s actually a point I could call my Topps runs complete.

[kmac32]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

Sucks. Only positive is there’s actually a point I could call my Topps runs complete.

Me too

[carlsonjok]

Terms of the deal are unclear, but sources say that both MLB and MLBPA will have an equity stake in the new company formed from scratch just to produce trading cards.

I had walked away from Topps flagship about a year after I re-entered the hobby and similarly left Heritage behind a year later, mainly because of Topps made scarcity a business strategy. The quote above tells me that nothing is going to change for the better. Every decision will be driven by what will maximize profits.

Now, I am an unabashed capitalist, so I get that is how companies operate and, to the extent that I am an investor, I am okay with it. But, as has been said upthread and elsewhere on this site, the profits aren't in selling packs to kids anymore. The profits are in turning the hobby into a casino and getting folks with more money than sense to chase after the 1/1 of the latest can't miss prospect. And I have to believe that isn't a sustainable business model.

[CurtisFlood]

Originally Posted by Cmvorce

I would imagine Fanatics will now attempt to acquire Topps? Seems like there would be value in maintaining the brand.

Bingo!

[Rich Klein]

The NFL has now joined in the fun and given Fanatics a 20 year contract.

[BobC]

Very interesting the way this is all developing, and all the major US sports licensing for cards seem to be going to Fanatics, that also shares ownership with the same major sports leagues and their player's unions.

I know that MLB operates under a 100 year old exemption from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, not sure about the NFL and NBA. I wonder with all of what is occuring if at some point this possibly comes under scrutiny as a potential violation of anti-trust laws. Doubt it, but don' know all the intricate details, so one never knows.

[packs]

Isn't Fanatics doing to Topps what Topps did to other companies? If it wasn't a trust before, is it now?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by packs

Isn't Fanatics doing to Topps what Topps did to other companies? If it wasn't a trust before, is it now?

I was thinking this too. Maybe the legal team at Topps should dust off and reuse those arguments Fleer made against them in their lengthy legal challenge years ago.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by packs

Isn't Fanatics doing to Topps what Topps did to other companies? If it wasn't a trust before, is it now?

I'm thinking in terms of the sports leagues owning Fanatics and then giving the licensing contracts basically to themselves, with apparently no one else even having a chance to bid, and summarily putting the licensing for all three major US sports in the hands of a single company virtually overnight.

Don't forget that Topps did lose exclusivity rights in the courts back in 1980, which is what allowed Fleer and Donruss to start issuing baseball cards in 1981. But the court cases and appeals continued and went back and forth for years after. And these cases revolved around contract definitions and interpretations,not just anti-trust issues. It will be interesting to see if Topps can find some way around the exclusivity of these new licensing agreements to try and still create BB cards going forward, but likely not because in 1980 when Fleer initially won the right to sell BB cards, they did so with the licensing coming through from the MLBPA since Topps exclusive contracts back then were with the individual players. Now though, the MLBPA is also part owner of the Fanatics entity granted exclusive licensing of MLB player rights going forward. So it is highly unlikely they (MLBPA) will grant Topps any licensing rights like they did with Fleer back in 1981.

So the playing field is quite a bit different now that MLB and the MLBPA both own interests in Fanatics. I can see Topps possibly trying to raise some type of anti-trust argument in the courts, especially since they weren't even afforded a chance to compete and bid on the new licensing agreements.

So with this joint colloboration between the three major US sports leagues and their respective players associations, if the combined effort to control licensing works out and and they prevail against any potential legal challenges, do they go ahead and form their own exclusive TV/cable network next and do away with anyone else ever airing any MLB, NFL, or NBA games ever again? Might not be as easy as the TV contracts aren't handled the same in all three sports, but the lure of money could lead to a lot of compromises among the various leagues and teams. Time will tell.

[abothebear]

I wonder if the major sports leagues' exemptions are nearly over. The stuff happening in college football is going to eventually lead to lawsuits and probably a successful competing league one of these days. The last attempt came close but they ran out of money and covid happened before they had quite enough inertia. In basketball, there is already enough talent to support a robust lower-level league. The NBA and NCAA are trying their best to maintain control over it with the one-and-dones and the G-league. Regional independent leagues in the major sports are primed for a level of success, but the anti-trust exemption, the near-sighted unions, and collusion with the NCAA is a hurdle. But it is one that may be successfully dismantled soon. The changes in how we get our TV may play a role in this as well.

Originally Posted by BobC

Very interesting the way this is all developing, and all the major US sports licensing for cards seem to be going to Fanatics, that also shares ownership with the same major sports leagues and their player's unions.

I know that MLB operates under a 100 year old exemption from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, not sure about the NFL and NBA. I wonder with all of what is occuring if at some point this possibly comes under scrutiny as a potential violation of anti-trust laws. Doubt it, but don' know all the intricate details, so one never knows.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by abothebear

I wonder if the major sports leagues' exemptions are nearly over. The stuff happening in college football is going to eventually lead to lawsuits and probably a successful competing league one of these days. The last attempt came close but they ran out of money and covid happened before they had quite enough inertia. In basketball, there is already enough talent to support a robust lower-level league. The NBA and NCAA are trying their best to maintain control over it with the one-and-dones and the G-league. Regional independent leagues in the major sports are primed for a level of success, but the anti-trust exemption, the near-sighted unions, and collusion with the NCAA is a hurdle. But it is one that may be successfully dismantled soon. The changes in how we get our TV may play a role in this as well.

If I remember correctly, MLB's court confirmed anti-trust exemption was finalized via a SCOTUS ruling in 1921, from a case brought by the Federal League against MLB that originated back in 1914. And the federal judge who presided over that initial case was none other than Landis himself. He was supposedly biased for MLB and did everything to delay the original case and make sure the Federal League was out of business and lost the case, which they did. It took until 1921 before the final appeal was also found in favor of MLB. Have always felt his later appointment as baseball's first Commissoner was blatant payback for his help to MLB in the anti-trust case, and that the timing of his appointment and the Supreme Court's final decision on the appeal of that case in favor of MLB wasn't wholly coincidental, especially given the esteem, respect, and influence he was supposed to have had throughout the entire federal court system.

Had also heard/read somewhere that in the past few months a few members of Congress were looking to bring forward a challenge against MLB's anti-trust exemption, despite the pandemic. Haven't heard anything new about this since then.

[egri]

I hadn't bought a Topps product more recent than the 1950s in years, but I'm surprised to see this. I expect the investors in taking it public are looking for the exits right now.

[Peter_Spaeth]

What is Topps' corporate status, I didn't really follow the story about it maybe going public?

[peanuts]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What is Topps' corporate status, I didn't really follow the story about it maybe going public?

Merger deal via SPAC still isn't complete. Presumably this buries that deal.

[Directly]

So Topps is still licensed for baseball products for five years--Wonder what the future might bring for NBA and NFL licensing --Topps used to produce those products too. Panini has many baseball card product lines without team logo's-and most of Panini new basketball and football products are selling out-I guess those license will be on the chopping block someday too-- $$$

[BobbyStrawberry]

Does Fanatics currently make baseball cards?

[packs]

No they specialize in very generic apparel.

[Foo3112]

Topps has history and resonates with even the older guys who collected Topps as kids just like their father did before them. I don't like this at all.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

No they specialize in very generic apparel.

Apparently it's a much bigger company than Topps?

[packs]

They're getting money from somewhere. I'm pretty sure they bought Steiner too.