Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+ Giving Topps a Baseball Card Monopoly, Is the Wrong Decision

[finestkind]

By JOSH ALPER
NBCNewYork.com
August 6,2009

Baseball card market needs competition not exclusivity.

During the halcyon days of the baseball card boom there were many companies vying for the dollars of collectors and the revenues went through the roof. The inevitable bust killed some of those companies, Fleer and Score we hardly knew thee, and now Major League Baseball is trying to close out the remaining competition by giving the business exclusively to Topps.

That's not how they spin it, of course. They spin it as saying that the way to revitalize the trading card business is by marketing it exclusively to kids, a party line that Topps' owner Michael Eisner is preaching as well.


"This is redirecting the entire category toward kids," said Eisner "Topps has been making cards for 60 years, the last 30 in a nonexclusive world that has caused confusion to the kid who walks into a Wal-Mart or a hobby store. It’s also been difficult to promote cards as unique and original."


That's hogwash on several levels. Anyone who has ever seen a kid in a candy or toy store knows that they have little issue deciding between things that they like and things that they don't. And if they like baseball cards, they're going to buy baseball cards whether they're made by Topps, Upper Deck or a cult that believes that Barry Zito is the messiah.

The Many Girlfriends of Derek Jeter
LOOK The Many Girlfriends of Derek Jeter
Eisner implies that Topps was selling a superior product, which is a specious claim given that we're talking about pictures of baseball players on cardboard. The only way that competition makes it hard to promote your product as unique and original is if your product is not, in fact, unique or original. If it is neither of those things, then you've got to eliminate the competition or lose market share. That has little to nothing to do with kids, who never drove the business anyway.

Sure, there's a bucolic image of kids with cards in their bicycle spokes being presented, but that's not what turned baseball cards into a cash cow in the 80's and 90's. It was adults, speculating on the future prices of cards in the same way as commodities traders speculate on the price of oil. It screws with the image, but it does wonders for the bottom line and there's not much chance of Topps recouping their investment solely by selling to kids.

The whole thing smacks of an inside deal between MLB and Eisner, who used to be part of the inner circle as the head of Disney. Disney, of course, once owned the Angels and owns ESPN, which has given the MLB a lot of cash and exposure over the years. Topps needs a little help to bolster their bottom line, so old friend Bud Selig helps him out and everybody's happy.

Upper Deck, the only other big card company, isn't totally finished. They have a licensing deal with the MLB Players Association, which means they can still sell cards with pictures of big leaguers doing big league things. They just can't show team logos, which will make for some goofy looking cards.

Hey, that's unique! See, Michael, it's not that hard!

Josh Alper is a writer living in New York City and is a contributor to FanHouse.com and ProFootballTalk.com in addition to his duties for NBCNewYork.com.

[pspstatus]

I had to laugh when I heard them say it's about the kids. I think this guy hit the nail right on the head about the relationship between Selig and Eisner. It's 2+2=4 really. And as far as I'm concerned Bud Selig is a HUGE part of what's wrong with baseball. I can't wait until that guy is out as commisioner.

[Dynasty1254]

Of course it had to go to Topps What an awful move for the whole hobby. And of course its for the kids, yah riiiiiiiiight. Hopefully UD just unloads the rest of 09 and we get some awesome products before being faced with just Topps. Topps = good at the low end, Upper Deck= good at high end, it's worked fine since they kicked Donruss out ( then it was even better, Donruss was like the mid-ground ).

I bet UD is kicking themselves now for starting the exclusive trend with the NHL licence. It really is a shame

Just thought of something else. What does this mean for UD exclusive players? Off the top of my head I can think of Dice K, Ichiro, Jeter, and Griffey.

This post has been edited by Dynasty1254: Aug 7 2009, 03:09 AM

[northicehero99]

Honestly I am surprised that none of the other card companies have challenged these licensing agreements as "monopolies". This is not a good thing but at least now UD will realize how it feels to be on the outside of the glass window looking in.

[aceecards]

As i stated so boldly on the UD blog site linked thru facebook

Its kind Instant karma.

UD started the mess with Hockey and now Topps just effectively one upped them with baseball!

Eisner has all that disney money and McWilliams did not!

Actually this all started last summer when Topps acquired the exclusive rights to CMG and all the old timers. At that point it effectively ended UD's success chances in the baseball card market!

Good bad or ugly will remain a future judgement

[aceecards]

Brian, The leagues control their copyrights, logos etc.. That is really all that has been taken away from UD at this point just as MLB did with DLP in 2005/06 and UD with ITG in hockey!

UD can still make baseball cards but they will have to airbrush off all the logos and such!

[Tromni]

So expect to see some super high end USA Baseball sets from UD. And some rookies products. And a legendary cuts release (I don't need a logo to recognize Babe Ruth in pinstripes.) And a Heroes style set with art paintings where the logos don't need to be there.

UD will still make lots of baseball cards. Don't Panic.

[bigalexx]

Its not a monopoly. MLBPA extended UDs license last month. Therefore UD can still produce cards of MLB Players, they just may not use logos or team names.

[benshobbies]

Basically, UD & Donruss are kicking themselves in the butt by producing sports cards without logos or team names. That proves that it is not a monopoly, and therefore, Topps has won in Baseball. I can only hope Football remains non-exclusive.

[superstar]

Basically, UD & Donruss are kicking themselves in the butt by producing sports cards without logos or team names.  That proves that it is not a monopoly, and therefore, Topps has won in Baseball.  I can only hope Football remains non-exclusive.

I have always liked having multiple different companies and products to choose from and as far as an exclusive deal I thought it was BULL - you know what when MLB and Topps and UD basically CONSPIRED and backroom dealed to make Donruss get out of the mlb licensed cards a few years back now leagues are able to sign full on exclusivity contracts with one company. It smacks of INSIDER TRADING considering topps is a publicly traded company and smacks of Monopolzing. Both of which are against the law unless of course you are a part of the good old boy network as is in this paticular case. SHAME on UD for starting this discriminatory and shameful practice and SHAME on Topps for continuing the same. OH on a side note I have collected all the major sports at one time or another but to do the exclusive with Hockey ??? Comeon ud you almost deserve to go out of business for that lack intelligence. That is least popular sport / smallest following / smallest market in sportscards.
Finally to both Topps and UD I have an old saying for both of you VERY GREEDY companies. If it isn't broke then don't try to fix it. You guys are going to KILL this hobby.