Fanatics Exclusivity Under Antitrust Threat
Fanatics
The real risk is not just losing one lawsuit, it is losing the right to be the sole gatekeeper between leagues, players, retailers, and collectors. Fanatics built its trading card position by locking up long term exclusive rights with major leagues and unions, then pairing those rights with Topps, retail distribution, and its own live selling channel. If courts or regulators push those arrangements open, competitors can get back into packs, boxes, and hobby shops, which weakens the clean flywheel Fanatics is trying to build across collectibles and commerce.
-
The Panini case is not a sideshow. In March 2025, the federal court let Panini keep pursuing core antitrust claims for injunctive relief over Fanatics’ exclusive long term licensing arrangements, which means the case can still test whether those contracts unlawfully shut rivals out of the trading card market.
-
This matters because exclusivity is what turns a card license into a monopoly on the most valuable products. Fanatics already owns Topps, bought athlete rights, and controls more of the sales path, from manufacturing to direct online sales. That structure is powerful when exclusive licenses hold, and much less powerful when leagues must share rights.
-
There is a clear precedent for courts limiting sports licensing exclusivity. In American Needle, the Supreme Court held in 2010 that NFL teams were not a single entity for this kind of licensing conduct, keeping league wide exclusive merchandise deals subject to antitrust scrutiny. That precedent is why Fanatics’ arrangements can be challenged rather than treated as untouchable league business.
The likely end state is not Fanatics disappearing, but a more fragmented market where leagues keep Fanatics as a major partner while reopening slices of rights to other card makers and retailers. That would make Fanatics compete more on product quality, distribution, and fan demand, and less on contract structure alone.