Sunday, August 26, 2012

Why Sports Card Grading Companies Exist


They are relatively low tech businesses, but they would not really exist at any level of influence in the sports card without the development of the internet.  That’s the irony of the sports card grading business.

Why do we need card grading companies like Professional Sports Authenticator (PSA), Sports Card Guaranty Company (SGC) or Beckett Card Grading (BGS or BVG)?  It’s because sports collectors care about the various conditions of their cards and need a way to determine those conditions, especially for transactions that are done somewhat impersonally over the internet.

It wasn’t always this way….

Before the advent of the Internet (yes, thank you Al Gore for inventing it 8-) ), building a nice sports card collection was much more difficult than today.  Attaining particular cards, especially vintage cards, required going to shows, being part of card trading clubs, having a network of friends who were collectors or dealing with the local sports card hobby store.  There were a few mail order houses where one could acquire old sets or cards, but most trading occurred face-to-face, and you were limited by the “local inventory” of stores and other collectors.  If you were real serious, you could go to regional or national shows where the inventory of cards was greater but doing that required more money and time than most collectors had.

Because you mostly dealt “face-to-face” on purchases (or trades) with dealers or collectors, you could easily examine a card before buying it.  Also, it did not matter that much if traders or buyers had different condition beliefs about what was EX shape versus NRMT shape for a card because that could all be worked out in the barter or pricing system in negotiations. Also, it was hard to get ripped off by counterfeit cards if you knew what you were doing and carried a loupe or magnifying glass with you.  Also, because people negotiated with each other, there seemed to be fewer grades than we have today.  Yes, a poor looking, creased, and beat up 1954 Topps Al Kaline rookie card was worth less than a card that was in decent shape.  However, there certainly wasn’t the major price premium you would find today associated with a Mint (e.g., PSA 9) 1954 Topps Al Kaline rookie card versus one that was EX-Mint (e.g., PSA 6).  A good looking card without creases and without bent corners was generally considered top quality whereby maybe there might be a smaller price differential for a card that was a little more pristine.

The Internet changed everything…..

And largely for the better of sports card collectors.  While card collecting was hurt in some ways by the Internet, such as the Internet's role in driving the local card stores out of business (more on this in a future posting), it opened up a nation (or even a world) of card inventory to the collector who would no longer have to rely on “local inventory” or traveling to shows to build their collections.  Indeed, eBay emerged by the late 1990s as the main way that most collectors purchased and sold sports cards.  It allowed middle-class people like me to build a 1954 Topps Baseball set (the first vintage set I built in the late 1990s) in a relatively short period of time.  It also shifted some power to the buyer on pricing.  For example, at a show if you wanted to buy a 1954 Topps Ernie Banks rookie card, you were limited to whichever dealer or trader had the '54 Banks card in inventory at the show.  This might be just one or two sellers at a small show.  With eBay, you suddenly had a number of 1954 Topps Ernie Banks’ cards on which to bid.  As a buyer, you could be more disciplined on holding-the-line on your maximum price because you knew that if you didn’t get the particular card you were bidding on some Sunday night that another would be available within hours or days.  At a show, it might be months before you got another shot at that ’54 Banks rookie card, so you would likely cave in a little on price.  While the Internet also brought more buyers into the market to bid up the price of that ’54 Bank’s rookie card, you at least knew that you could figure out what the right price was over a few days or weeks of bidding and eventually get the card if you had enough money.

However, the shift of buying, selling and trading of sports cards to the Internet and particularly to eBay took the face-to-face element out of the transaction.  This created ‘economic opportunity’ for the sports card grading industry.  It was (and is) hard to see the conditions of cards on the Internet beyond the pictures and descriptions on eBay.  You could no longer hold the card in your hand and inspect it.  While most of my experiences buying on eBay have been great, problems can occur because collectors’ ideas of what, for example, is an EX or NRMT card can and will often honestly differ.  These are honest mistakes.  Also, what economists call “information asymmetry” exists in the transaction on the Internet.  The buyer is limited to the knowledge that is given to him or her by the seller in the picture and description on eBay.  This can give unscrupulous sellers great advantage.  They can sell counterfeit cards as real.  They can sell beat up cards as higher grade cards.  They can also sell altered cards (like trimmed cards) as unaltered.  These unscrupulous actions would be much harder in the pre-Internet world of face-to-face transactions.

While eBay does a pretty good job of trying to stop unscrupulous sellers through having feedback posted and trying to ban such sellers, their system is far from fault proof.  If somebody takes your money and disappears, you are sort of stuck and out of luck (I will have a post in the future about how to avoid eBay scams and get your money back from bad sellers).  Often, even if you can identify the person who defrauded you, in many cases your only course of action would be to file a claim in small claims court in the jurisdiction where the person lives, which is a pain in the rear end and usually is much more expensive than the money you lost in the first place.  Trading with people outside of eBay via the Internet is even more risky, unless they are a major seller like a retail store or site that has built up a reputation.  Also, the more expensive the card, the greater the risk created for the buyer by information asymmetry.

However, the “information asymmetry” on eBay or the Internet largely disappears if:

(1)    There is a standard system for grading sports cards.
(2)    This system is administered by a third party outside the trading transactions.
(3)    It is hard to fake the system (i.e., in this case, crack open the graded card cases        and insert other cards or build fake card cases)
(4)    Buyers pay a premium for the information gained by the standardized system.

And, of course, this reduction of “information asymmetry” is why the card grading companies exist at the level they do today.  We can buy a card graded PSA 7 from a stranger over eBay and pretty much know what the card will look like when it arrives.  If it is PSA 7, we know it has no creases, pretty sharp corners and is not counterfeit.  The PSA 7 grade is a signal of the card's condition and is sort of a warranty of what the card will look like when it arrives.

Indeed, without the Internet, there would probably be only a very few wealthy people that would use the grading services in trying to determine who has the best T206 Honus Wagner card.  The rest of us would still be buying cards face-to-face and also have much smaller collections.  However, do not just take my arguments as evidence, let us look at some real numbers.  While it is not clear which company actually invented professional grading of cards, PSA service started in the mid-1990s.  Here are some numbers for the end of that decade:

Year               Cards Graded by PSA (in year)        eBay Net Sales
1998                       168,000                                 $  86,129,000   
1999                       899,000                                 $224,724,000
2000                       1,800,000                              $431,424,000 (footnote 1)

As can be seen from these numbers, PSA’s number of cards graded took off with eBay’s initial establishment and growth in the late 1990s.  This correlation is not a coincidence and reflected the changing nature of how collector’s acquired cards after the establishment of the internet and eBay.

In my next post (in the works), I will discuss why so few legitimate card grading companies exist.  At the time of this writing in 2012, collectors really only have three legitimate options in my opinion for getting their cards graded: PSA, SGC and Beckett (This assumes collectors may want to resell their cards at some point in time).


1 The number of cards graded by PSA comes from the Collectors Universe 10K from 2000, which can be found here: http://clct.client.shareholder.com/sec.cfm?DocType=Annual&Year=&FormatFilter= .  The eBay sales data can be found in their 2000 10K filing here: http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001095811-01-001836%2Etxt&FilePath=%5C2001%5C03%5C28%5C&CoName=EBAY+INC&FormType=10-K&RcvdDate=3%2F28%2F2001&pdf= .

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

How Sports Card Royalties Work

Just like any other commercial enterprise, the companies that manufacture sports cards cannot use the images of athletes without getting legal permission. When these companies use images they pay a licensing fee or a royalty in order to use the images of players and other copyrighted images such as team logos. These fees can come in the form of a flat payment, of say $5000, to an athlete or organization, but may also come in the form of a percentage of sales of the ‘officially licensed product’.

Licensing disputes have been very common in sports card manufacturing over its history with significant consequences for the industry. For example, the most valuable high-profile sports card, the T206 Honus Wagner card, is so scarce exactly because of a license denial. Back in 1909, the American Tobacco Company, which packaged baseball cards with cigarettes as a premium, sent all the players that were to appear in their baseball card series $10 for the rights to use their images on the cards. Assuming that no player would turn down that money, cards went into production. However, shortly after production began, Wagner returned his $10 through an intermediary and denied permission for more cards to be produced with his image. The lore associated with the story is that Wagner did not want to be associated with selling cigarettes, but his motives were never fully clear, and he did endorse chewing tobacco and cigars.

In any case, the American Tobacco Company had to pull the card early from printing runs, and it is estimated that a very few went into circulation. Given that cards were not collected and preserved well at the time, this situation led to the around twenty T206 Honus Wagner cards that are estimated to be in existence today. Also, because Wagner is estimated to be one of the top players to have ever played baseball, it is easy to see why some T206 Honus Wagner cards have changed hands for over $1 Million.
(footnote 1)

In the modern era, licensing of sport cards can be quite complicated. For example, a fully licensed baseball card will pay royalties to Major League Baseball (MLB), The Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) and to the individual player on the card. Other sports follow similar licensing agreements. Players often let their league’s organized labor group like the MLBPA negotiate their individual rights with sports card companies whereby the labor group keeps some money in a general pool that supports the group or subsidizes other causes. In baseball, it has long been that the MLBPA licenses rights to the player’s image (and autographs on cards) and gets those royalties. The league, MLB, then licenses any copyrighted logos, team names or other major league registered trademarks.


The exception to this general rule is Topps' dealings with baseball players.  Throughout its long history, Topps has signed individual major (and sometimes minor league) baseball players to long-term contracts of up to five years with annual one-year extensions.  This situation is a legacy leftover from Topps' battle with Bowman in the 1950s for player contracts whereby both companies tried to sign players to long term contracts with these contracts sometimes being exclusive.  It was such exclusive player contracts that allowed Topps to have a virtual monopoly in the 1960s and 1970s in baseball cards issued with gum.  Topps would rather prefer not to license with the MLBPA because it just adds another level of royalty payments.  The MLBPA, while not getting Topps to sign a license, has however been able to use the threat of the union getting players to not renew their contracts to get Topps to pay the players greater royalty levels.  Therefore, the MLBPA has been able to somewhat influence Topps. (footnote 8) 

This separation of licenses can lead to some cards that are licensed only by certain parties. For example, the card below, which is a 1990 Ken Griffey Jr. ‘Jumbo California Sunflower Seeds’ card has the Mariners logo air-brushed from Griffey’s hat. Because the card was only licensed by the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA), it cannot show the Mariners’ logo without violating Major League Baseball’s trademark or copyright of that logo. The reason a card producer would want to go that route is because it is less expensive to produce the cards without having to pay the MLB a cut. Many cards can be found over with similar lack of lack of logos and other MLB owned symbols such as years and years of Post Cereal Cards.



 A player or former player can even sell his own image rights without the representation of his or her union or league. For example, Nolan Ryan licensed his image to Pacific Trading Cards in 1991 for a complete set based on his career (see card below). Note of the scan of the back that Pacific also received a license from Major League Baseball (MLB) as seen by the MLB logo on the back of the card and that Ryan’s hat in the picture has the Angels trademarked logo. Other players like the late Ted Williams licensed their own images for cards over the years, which is why Fleer was able to produce an entire Ted Williams set in 1959 despite Topps claiming to have sole right to produce baseball cards for the MLB from 1955 to the early 1980s (I will have a bigger post on this later).






 Here’s a Ted Williams card from his 1959 Fleer set:




The terms of licensing agreements are usually kept secret by the contracting parties. Since none of the involved companies or licensors (like the MLBPA) are publicly-traded companies, disclosure of terms is not something investors could pressure management to divulge. That being said, lawsuits occasionally happen that reveal the terms, which generally seem to be favorable to the licensors and players. For example, in March 2012, the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) sued Upper Deck for non-payment of royalties (e.g., licensing fees) to both the NFLPA and over 200 NFL Players.
 (footnote 2) The suit reveals that Upper Deck had to pay minimum guaranteed royalties to the NFLPA plus a percentage of revenue generated by cards after the minimum royalties were met. The suit does not reveal the percentage royalties or at what level of sales they take effect. Also, various players received royalties for their autographs at different rates. Dallas QB Tony Romo autographed enough cards to be owed $180,000 by Upper Deck. Former Bronco QB Tim Tebow signed enough to be owed $84,000.(footnote 3)  Late payments to the NFLPA were also assessed an interest rate of 1.5% per month. Finally, Upper Deck also had to make payments to some NFLPA charities. (footnote 2) 

 This situation suggests that power in the sport card licensing arrangement lies with player’s associations (and players) first and then second with the leagues involved. This makes economic sense since these parties hold the ‘scarce resources’ in the sports card economic ecosystem. The scarce resources being access to player images and league team logos, uniforms, etc. Indeed, the leagues and the players associations are in monopoly positions where the only fact that holds them back from charging more is that they need sports cards to market their sport to the end consumer.


Recent Developments in Licensing

In closing, it might be worth a peek at some recent trends in licensing. First, in 2009, MLB decided to give sole copyright permission for baseball cards to Topps.
(footnote 4)  I really do not understand the logic behind this decision from MLB because companies can still produce Player’s Association licensed cards, just minus the MLB logos and trademarks. I suspect that they either received great terms from Topps or that Michael Eisner, former Disney CEO now running Topps, knows how to sell his story very well. The stated reason is that the baseball card market with its many product lines, offerings per company and super-premium products was chasing away kids who were confused by the multitude of products. While this makes sense, I have not seen Topps be extremely responsive to the kids’ market since this exclusive license was granted. They seem to put much of their marketing muscle behind premium products that are really beyond kids’ collecting budgets. More to be seen down the road…

In trend two, Upper Deck seems to be basically flouting copyright law right and left, and is getting sued constantly.
(footnote 5)  The company seems, in my opinion, to be quite litigious over its history, and I suspect that it is in financial trouble. (footnote 6)  Upper Deck’s only solid licensing agreement situation is with the NHL and NHLPA. They basically do not have licenses with major football or baseball institutions. They now produce rookie football cards of college players under license with the Collegiate Licensing Company, which represents NCAA schools. (footnote 7)  This allows them to get around paying the players themselves because when Robert Griffin III appears in a Baylor uniform on a card, Mr. Griffin gets no cut. College athletes sign away the rights to their images in college in order to play. Seems like a cheap route to get images of upcoming rookie players, but nothing seems too weird for Upper Deck right now.



1 For more on the T206 Wagner card, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T206_Honus_Wagner .  The above history of the card draws extensively on that web site.
2 A copy of the full lawsuit can be found here: http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/NFLPAvsUpperDeck.pdf .  It is an extremely long document, but it shows how much each player was even damaged.