Topps out---Fanatics in

[brauncj1]

Originally Posted by RollTribe

Does this mean that I never have to speak to Minerva again?

She is the worst!

[Chrominator]

Originally Posted by speedyjg13

What is NFT?

Not for touching

[Cam Brady]

“Topps expects to be able to produce substantially all its current licensed baseball products through 2025, pursuant to its existing agreements, and will build on the exceptional performance in the second quarter of 2021 in its Sports & Entertainment segment, and its Confections segment,” the company said.

[Wildcat55]

Originally Posted by speedyjg13

What is NFT?

Sadly….NFT now stands for No Future Topps products.

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by pewe

What makes you think Topps will stop making baseball cards? Lots of avenues that keep them in the game. Some with, some without logos, for sure. But still in the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They lose the ability to use anyone in the MLBPA in 2023 and the ability to use MLB logos and names in 2025. Look at the amount of people that refuse to buy Panini products based solely on the fact that they don't have logos. Topps isn't going to survive making 1992 Bowman Mariano Rivera type cards. And the same company, MLBP, handles both the MLB and MiLB licencing. I would assume that Fanatics will have no problem getting the minors as well. They simply threw more money at the majors, easily could do the same with minors. And with all the money issues in the minors, they will 100% take the biggest offer.

This deal isn't like the previous deals, the MLBPA card license has never been exclusive. It is now. Topps isn't going to be able to just sign individuals to baseball card deals.

[smanzari]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

It would make sense for Fanatics to buy the companies though. I'd think they have the distribution muscle to sell direct to customers. You could cut a lot of distributors and retailers out leaving more money for you.

I could be acting dramatic but I'd be a bit nervous if I was an LCS or even a bigger company like Blowout. You're seeing what Hasbro is doing with MTG by selling more and more through Amazon. Why wouldn't Fanatics do the same?

On the flip side, while cards are super hot right now, I think you're seeing a slow pull back to normal levels. It's as if Fanatics is buying in high only to sell back low down the line. Reminds me of how Topps got The Walking Dead license from Cryptozoic right as The Walking Dead was starting to cool off a bit.

It doesn't make sense to buy ANY company for this. It makes TONS of sense to license names and products and/or entering strategic distribution partnerships

[ClipsandVols]

Why the hell didn't Topps put MLB teams on Push Pops?

Sorry I just looked at their candy..had no clue they produced any "names" other than Bazooka.

[msink28]

I agree with all of this, my first thought was that Fanatics was buying in really high. My second was that it would be tough to own an LCS right now.

Originally Posted by Brobocop

It would make sense for Fanatics to buy the companies though. I'd think they have the distribution muscle to sell direct to customers. You could cut a lot of distributors and retailers out leaving more money for you.

I could be acting dramatic but I'd be a bit nervous if I was an LCS or even a bigger company like Blowout. You're seeing what Hasbro is doing with MTG by selling more and more through Amazon. Why wouldn't Fanatics do the same?

On the flip side, while cards are super hot right now, I think you're seeing a slow pull back to normal levels. It's as if Fanatics is buying in high only to sell back low down the line. Reminds me of how Topps got The Walking Dead license from Cryptozoic right as The Walking Dead was starting to cool off a bit.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by whitmm

This deal isn't like the previous deals, the MLBPA card license has never been exclusive. It is now. Topps isn't going to be able to just sign individuals to baseball card deals.

My understanding is the MLBPA deal doesn’t prevent players from signing individuals 1:1.

It’s more work for Topps, sure, but that hasn’t prevented them from releasing prospect cards that require the exact same 1:1 individual deals that underpin all their Bowman prospect player cards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[monkeymcgee]

Originally Posted by pewe

My understanding is the MLBPA deal doesn’t prevent players from signing individuals 1:1.

It’s more work for Topps, sure, but that hasn’t prevented them from releasing prospect cards that require the exact same 1:1 individual deals that underpin all their Bowman prospect player cards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the difference is the exclusivity from MLBPA which could prevent union members from doing individual deals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mchenrycards]

I will admit I am a vintage card guy but still have room for the shiny stuff on occasion. When I heard that Topps was losing it’s license, I do have to admit there was a great deal of sadness that came with this news. I was raised on Topps being THE card company because it was the ONLY card company. Even when Fleer and Donruss came along in 1981, I collected those cards but Topps was still the top dog. Sure, being a vintage guy, I love Bowman, had Play Ball and Diamond Star cards in my collection and even added some Fleer to the mix but the affinity was always for the Topps brand. And since we cannot ignore the elephant in the room, Topps almost always had that value above most other brands in the business.

I am probably a dinosaur in the collecting card business in that I have stuck with my vintage sets and really have no need or desire to dive heavily into anything new. If I was being honest, I just don’t have interest in today’s players and certainly will not be shelling out large amounts of money for cards of guys I just really do not care for. For guys like me, the loss of the Topps license likely will not effect us very much but the reality is that Topps exiting the sports card business is much like the loss of a family friend. Someone who has been there one’s whole life and now will be summarily dismissed much like those family friends who have grown old beyond their years and everyone wonder whatever happened to them. I am going to miss Topps but not for the fact I will no longer be able to purchase memories in packs of cards but for the fact a company that was there for me as a nine year old kid, a company who’s products helped me to learn to read and understand statistics and showed me what my childhood heroes really looked like is being dismissed. Is this Topps fault? Sure, they need to share the blame as they failed to change with the times but the real culprit is what is killing sports in general. The culprit is greed and the need to capitalize on an investment and make money for the stockholders while making the collectors pockets as light as possible. I understand it but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with this process or be happy with it.

As for me, I am going back to my Sibby Sisti, Oscar Zamora and Fergie Jenkins cards while trying to finish my 1975 Topps set for the third time.

At least I still have these memories.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by monkeymcgee

I think the difference is the exclusivity from MLBPA which could prevent union members from doing individual deals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How would that work? Players have generally been free to promote whatever they want. Even products that are competitors to official exclusively sponsored by MLB or MLBPA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by pewe

My understanding is the MLBPA deal doesn’t prevent players from signing individuals 1:1.

It’s more work for Topps, sure, but that hasn’t prevented them from releasing prospect cards that require the exact same 1:1 individual deals that underpin all their Bowman prospect player cards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In reading about when they signed the minor league license, it looks like that gave them the right to use all current minor league players. So they aren't going out and doing all those 1:1 deals you're suggesting

[wood minis]

Originally Posted by calculusdork

I'm going to write a philosophical treatise on the supremacy of the physical over the digital.

That needs to happen!

[spuds1961]

Originally Posted by mchenrycards

I will admit I am a vintage card guy but still have room for the shiny stuff on occasion. When I heard that Topps was losing it’s license, I do have to admit there was a great deal of sadness that came with this news. I was raised on Topps being THE card company because it was the ONLY card company. Even when Fleer and Donruss came along in 1981, I collected those cards but Topps was still the top dog. Sure, being a vintage guy, I love Bowman, had Play Ball and Diamond Star cards in my collection and even added some Fleer to the mix but the affinity was always for the Topps brand. And since we cannot ignore the elephant in the room, Topps almost always had that value above most other brands in the business.

I am probably a dinosaur in the collecting card business in that I have stuck with my vintage sets and really have no need or desire to dive heavily into anything new. If I was being honest, I just don’t have interest in today’s players and certainly will not be shelling out large amounts of money for cards of guys I just really do not care for. For guys like me, the loss of the Topps license likely will not effect us very much but the reality is that Topps exiting the sports card business is much like the loss of a family friend. Someone who has been there one’s whole life and now will be summarily dismissed much like those family friends who have grown old beyond their years and everyone wonder whatever happened to them. I am going to miss Topps but not for the fact I will no longer be able to purchase memories in packs of cards but for the fact a company that was there for me as a nine year old kid, a company who’s products helped me to learn to read and understand statistics and showed me what my childhood heroes really looked like is being dismissed. Is this Topps fault? Sure, they need to share the blame as they failed to change with the times but the real culprit is what is killing sports in general. The culprit is greed and the need to capitalize on an investment and make money for the stockholders while making the collectors pockets as light as possible. I understand it but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with this process or be happy with it.

As for me, I am going back to my Sibby Sisti, Oscar Zamora and Fergie Jenkins cards while trying to finish my 1975 Topps set for the third time.

At least I still have these memories.

Nice read well put.

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by pewe

How would that work? Players have generally been free to promote whatever they want. Even products that are competitors to official exclusively sponsored by MLB or MLBPA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The same way the Ben Simmons deal worked. Panini could make basketball cards of him, but no autos or memorabilia. In turn, Upper Deck could have autos, but they can't make basketball cards of him

[crawley88]

Now that I've had a chance to sleep on it and process my thoughts compared to yesterday:

1. This still sucks
2. I got back into baseball card collecting a few years ago based on nostalgia. I tried Panini a few years back and couldn't do it. Partly because it wasn't licensed and partly because it wasn't Topps/Bowman. Fanatics may come out with some nice new shiny stuff, but if it's not Topps/Bowman, I won't be buying it.
3. I've been dabbling more and more in vintage and I think this is the kick I needed to fully get away from the overpriced current crap and focus on vintage
4. There are going to be a lot of folks/companies significantly impacted by this, including many who will lose jobs (and a lot of jobs gained) including Topps, Panini, LCS's, Distributors, etc. We haven't heard the end of this. Whether valid or not, there are going to be lawsuits.
5. What Fanatics is doing certainly seems like a monopoly, but if they produce product at all price points from the bottom end all the way to high end, I don't see consumers having much of a foot to stand. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that monopolies are illegal because of lack of competition. If there are product at all price points so that all consumers can partake, is a lack of competition really an issue.

This really sucks for me, but this is a BIG hobby and plenty of other ways to continue to enjoy it.

[JRX]

Originally Posted by Zauron

It will matter because Fanatics won't be making money, so they will have to cut ties with MLB and then MLB is out of money.

Leagues want cards out there for people. Heck, they require a certain amount of sets produced a year(at least in football), probably to help publicize the league and players, and get more people into the game.

Since when has mlb made a decision in the interests of fans / end customers over money? They don't care about you me or anyone else. Their business model is "What are you going to do, follow another sport?"

[monkeymcgee]

Originally Posted by pewe

How would that work? Players have generally been free to promote whatever they want. Even products that are competitors to official exclusively sponsored by MLB or MLBPA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, but in this case the players are the product. I think it’s different than other situations we’ve had before with league exclusives. Maybe someone else can clear it up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brobocop]

Originally Posted by smanzari

It doesn't make sense to buy ANY company for this. It makes TONS of sense to license names and products and/or entering strategic distribution partnerships

This is akin to WWE buying WCW. WCW had value when they had the contracts but had their most value when they had TV time on the Turner networks. Once Turner pulled out, the value plummeted to a point where WWE could buy it for pennies on the dollar. I feel like if Fanatics wants those names, brand, and designs, they'll be able to get them pretty cheap now.

[HHammer8]

My thoughts...I haven't read through all 45 pages and if this has been said, I'm sorry. My guess is that Fanatics will sub-license everything. I work in the collegiate apparel business and that is what they do there in the +1 model. Why would they spend the money to acquire a company and take on all the headache, when the infrastructure is already in place and they can just let the company do what they normally do, but take a cut of it what they produce? My guess at what will happen is that trading cards will just become more expensive to produce for Topps and Panini (assuming they agree to a sub-license deal) and that cost will be passed on to consumers. Why would Fanatics kill established brands? Just let them continue to produce but take money from them while they do it.

I can't stand Fanatics, but I actually think this could be a good thing. Any company, UD, Topps, Panini could partner with Fanatics for X amount of MLB, NBA, NFL products a year and voila, competition is back. (Assuming they get the NBA/NFL licenses obviously)

A simple example...I work at the University of Wisconsin. They have a +1 model. UA and 1 other company (Fanatics) are the only two companies that are allowed produce Wisconsin branded apparel (softlines). That is too much headache for Fanatics to deal with so they sub-license different companies - '47 Brand, Colosseum, New Era, etc. They take an 18% fee (or there abouts) from the sub-licensed companies.

[rws211]

I for one do not think the sky is falling. There is NO way, NONE, that Fanatics thinks they can create a card company from scratch. They are not dumb. This is them making a strategic and cutthroat move to cut off Topps at the knees right before their SPAC deal, which will force them into a sale to Fanatics, probably at a fraction of what they offered them last year. Topps moves on as 'normal', same as Budweiser under AB InBev.

As for them gobbling up NBA and maybe NFL, well, thats the start of a card monopoly. Count me in for Topps Dynasty NBA and Revolution MLB. But long way to go to get there and many people can get hurt in the process.

[3XDAD]

The Stockx guy is running the show. I would imagine that will be a key indicator on how this plays out. He won’t change. What you see in the sneaker industry will be the same for us. He apparently stated that the card industry was dead so I’d imagine what we are used to disappears. Expect big changes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pewe]

Originally Posted by whitmm

In reading about when they signed the minor league license, it looks like that gave them the right to use all current minor league players. So they aren't going out and doing all those 1:1 deals you're suggesting

Who did they sign this “minor league license” with? MLBPA doesn’t cover MiLB players.

According to Wikipedia (always correct, right???) Topps continues to make all its licensing agreements 1:1 with players. And, in fact, doesn’t utilize the MLBPA license aggregation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topps

“Topps continues to use individual player contracts as the basis for its baseball card sets today. This contrasts with other manufacturers, who all obtain group licenses from the MLBPA. The difference has occasionally affected whether specific players are included in particular sets. “


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[theshowandme]

https://twitter.com/RicEllis85/statu...304921095?s=20