A Cautionary Tale on Trading Cards

By Mark Meisner

For those who grew up opening trading card packs at the kitchen table, the Panini and Fanatics legal battle may sound familiar. The trading card industry has been here before: booming, over-saturating the market, crashing, and then, against all odds, finding its way back into the spotlight. What makes this moment different is not who holds the cards, literally and figuratively, but how the trading card space is rapidly evolving.

To understand why, it helps to rewind. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, trading cards were everywhere. Manufacturers printed aggressively, collectors hoarded sealed boxes, and the concept of scarcity became foreign. The result? A market flooded with product that looked valuable but was hardly worth the cardboard it was printed on. Prices collapsed, collectors exited the game, and the industry spent years rebuilding trust and assessing its future.

Fast forward to today, and the lesson is simple: scarcity sells. Modern trading cards are engineered as much as they are printed: limited runs, serial numbering, autographs, patches, game-used treasures, and increasingly, a premium product. The pandemic-era boom only accelerated this shift, bringing in a new class of buyers who viewed cards not simply as collectibles, but as assets.

Against that backdrop, this dispute is less about conflict and more about control over the industry’s evolution. At the center is a deceptively simple question: who gets to tell the story of the athlete on cardboard (or chrome or digital screens) and under what terms?

The answer lies in licensing. Unlike many consumer products, trading cards depend on a dual layer of permissions: league rights and player rights. Miss one, and the product loses much of its appeal and value. Secure both, and you hold something far more powerful than a printing press; you hold the keys to industry dominance.

For years, the system functioned like a merry-go-round. Industry players cycled through licenses, exclusivity was fleeting, and there existed the possibility that a competitor might step in with a better offer or more innovative idea. That constant churn mirrored the unpredictability that made collecting cards fun in the first place.

What has changed is the shift toward long-term, strategically integrated partnerships. Rather than treating licenses as short-term deals, they are now being structured as durable, interconnected relationships, sometimes even aligning interests between leagues, players, and manufacturers. It is a model that prioritizes stability and cohesion, but it also reshapes how innovation and competition function in the marketplace.

There is a certain irony here, no doubt. The same industry that once collapsed under the weight of too much supply is now defined by carefully engineered, and contracted for, limitations, not just of cards, but of who can produce them. And while that may protect value in the short term, it raises a different kind of question: how much structure is too much for a market that has long thrived on discovery, surprise, and the thrill of the unexpected pull?

For licensors and licensees, the takeaway is not just balance but legal leverage. Licensing now operates as a primary mechanism driving market control, naming the participants, on what terms, and with what degree of competition. Licensing is no longer a gateway to commercialization, but a legal tool used to shape innovation, access, and the collector experience. Long-term exclusivity can create consistency yet restrict entry and creative friction in the market. Strategic partnerships can align incentives but also concentrate influence over market evolution.

The trading card industry has proven it can reinvent itself. It survived overproduction, rediscovered scarcity, and tapped into nostalgia, fueling a modern resurgence. The question is now whether its current structure will preserve the momentum or quietly constrain it. Because at its best, collecting has never been just about ownership. It’s about the chase, the story, and the belief that the next pack might hold something unexpected. The challenge for today’s dealmakers is ensuring that they do not inadvertently deaden the magic of pulling that special pack.

Mark Meisner is an associate attorney in Fishman Stewart’s Sports Law practice group. Mark assists clients in managing their intellectual property interests, including trademarks and copyrights as they relate to the business side of sports. He enjoys guiding clients through complex sports and intellectual property issues and has a passion for sports law.

Cheers to Michael B. Stewart – Patent Attorney / IP Specialist on being named to the College of Fellows by The Engineering Society of Detroit. 

“Once an engineer, always an engineer!”

Michael’s impressive legal career has been powered by his technical background. With his legal and engineering accomplishments, coupled with his extensive community involvement, Michael’s admission into the College is a well-deserved career milestone. Read more in the press release here.