Fanatics Accused of Conspiring With Leagues, Unions on High Card Prices

A new lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York contends that Fanatics, the NFL, NFLPA, MLB, MLPBA, NBA, NBPA and OneTeam Partners have illegally conspired to inflate prices and reduce competition in the sports trading card market.

Phillip Jones, a resident of Phoenix, Ariz., says when he purchased pro sports trading cards from big-box retailers, online stores and other outlets, he paid “artificially inflated” prices. The prices were allegedly higher because of exclusive licensing deals Fanatics struck with the major leagues and players’ unions that prevented or reduced opportunities for other companies to produce licensed trading cards. 

Through Gregory S. Asciolla and other attorneys from DiCello Levitt, Jones accuses the defendants of deceptive trade practices, and violating antitrust laws and related laws. He wants his case to be certified as a class action on behalf of consumers who, since Jan. 1, 2022, have purchased from a big box store, local trading card shop, online store or similar vendors “newly issued, fully licensed major U.S. pro league trading cards produced by Fanatics.”

The case will face hurdles. A big one: Leagues and players unions have long used group licensing agreements with trading card companies, video game publishers, apparel makers and other businesses for the use—sometimes exclusive use—of teams’ intellectual property and players’ right of publicity, including their NIL. Entrusting one company to produce trading cards of players could be deemed an efficient method of card production.

Meanwhile, higher prices might reflect greater demand for superior products or inflationary pressures. One company producing a licensed product is not unique to trading cards—for example, Electronic Arts has an exclusive license to make NFL games and now college football and college basketball games.

In a statement, a Fanatics spokesperson said Jones’ complaint is “nothing more than a rehash of baseless allegations” that resembles “earlier filed groundless lawsuits.” The spokesperson also said the complaint “is fundamentally flawed in numerous respects,” while maintaining that Fanatics’ “contributions to the collectibles industry have brought much needed innovation and excitement that has benefited market participants.”

The complaint paints Fanatics as aggressively seizing monopoly power of the trading card market by acquiring exclusive licenses with the NFL, NBA, MLB and their respective players’ associations in the early 2020s. Jones claims Fanatics engaged in these deals through “back room” moves and “without any open bidding process.” Jones also contends Fanatics only expanded its control and stifled competition by acquiring Topps in 2022. 

Expect pushback from Fanatics’ attorneys on how Jones portrays the facts. The complaint contends that Fanatics announced the acquisition of licenses from MLB, MLBPA, NBA, NBPA, NFL and NFLPA “beginning in August 2021,” while Fanatics is likely to argue it has not held the rights of all these associations since 2021. For example, the deal Fanatics struck with the NBA and NBPA doesn’t begin until 2026, meaning any price changes caused by the deal presumably wouldn’t occur until 2026.

Jones also mentions ongoing litigation between Fanatics and Panini, with Jones accusing Fanatics of threatening to “blacklist Panini employees from ever working in the industry again when Fanatics’ exclusive long-term licenses took effect unless they immediately quit Panini and joined Fanatics.” 

Sportico has detailed the litigation between Fanatics and Panini, explaining how it involves each company suing the other in separate cases, and how it centers on recent shifts in the market for trading cards and exclusive licensees. Earlier this year, a judge in the Southern District of New York ruled the cases will continue as separate matters. They remain on the SDNY’s docket.

Trading cards were a principal part of Fanatics CEO Michael Rubin’s push over the past five years to diversify Fanatics’ business and expand into new areas. His company bought Topps for nearly $500 million in early 2022, a surprise move that instantly made Fanatics one of the biggest names in U.S. trading cards. 

Since then, the company has been aggressive in consolidating rights via the country’s biggest leagues and players unions. The Topps trading cards and entertainment division had sales of $368 million in 2020, the last full year disclosed before the takeover. Last year, Topps did about $1.6 billion in sales, Sportico reported in January. It’s the highest-margin business at Fanatics and accounted for about 20% of the company’s revenue in 2024. 

Fanatics’ move to add rights to the Topps portfolio was not without legal challenge, including in ways relevant to Jones’ lawsuit and how it retells history. 

Last year the NFLPA lost a $7 million ruling to Panini when an arbitration panel said the union breached its duty to the card maker when it tried to exit the agreement early to join Topps. (The NFLPA holds equity in Fanatics, as do a number of other major unions.) A U.S. district court also sided with Panini as it fought WWE’s attempts to terminate its deal early in order to move to Fanatics.  

Fanatics is also depicted in Jones’ complaint as offering equity stakes in “future monopoly profits” to leagues and players’ associations so they would agree to exclusive licensing deals that last as long as 20 years. These long-term deals are portrayed as being of such “extreme length” that they’ll stifle competition. Along those lines, long-term deals prevent potential rivals from entering the trading card market to offer competing products that might lead to reduced prices and greater innovation.

Alleged damages are not specified, though the complaint says the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Jones demands a jury trial to hear his case, which as of this writing has not yet been assigned to a judge. He also seeks an injunction to force the defendants to stop engaging in allegedly anticompetitive practices. 

In the coming weeks, attorneys for Fanatics and the other defendants will answer the complaint and seek its dismissal. Expect them to assert consumers are better off, not worse off, with the exclusive licensing contracts. Fanatics will likely be portrayed as being awarded exclusive deals in reflection of merit and because of the company’s quality of product. 

The defendants are likely also to empirically challenge that prices have risen on account of exclusive deals. As mentioned above, some of the exclusive deals haven’t yet taken effect, which suggests they would not have impacted prices. Also, to the extent prices of trading cards have increased, it might reflect other reasons, including inflation and shifts in supply and demand. They’ll also point out case precedent—including a famous baseball card case, Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc. (1953)—standing for the proposition that athletes have the right to exclusively license their NIL and other distinguishing traits. 

In addition, although Jones contends sports trading cards are a distinct market, the defendants might contend a broader sports collectibles market is more appropriate for an antitrust lawsuit.