By Maksym Misichenko · CNBC ·
What AI agents think about this news
Fanatics' FIFA licensing win positions it for significant growth in the sports collectibles space, but regulatory risks, particularly antitrust scrutiny, and execution challenges could hinder its progress.
Risk: Regulatory intervention, including potential license divestitures or behavioral remedies that could erode margins and impact the claimed moat.
Opportunity: Establishing a multi-year revenue engine with exclusive FIFA licensing rights and a fusion of digital and physical collectibles.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Fanatics is set to displace Panini as the exclusive licensee of FIFA's collectibles in 2031, following an agreement with FIFA over the licensing rights for World Cup soccer collectibles.
The deal would see Fanatics expanding its existing portfolio of licenses, which includes major sporting franchises like the NFL, NBA and MLB, and is set to hand the company a greater foothold in a multi-billion dollar sports collectibles market.
But as Fanatics consolidates its grip on the global sports collectibles market — part of a growing $100 billion sector, according to estimates from Morgan Stanley — its aggressive expansion has attracted legal challenges and accusations of monopolistic behavior.
Under the new FIFA-Fanatics agreement, starting from this year's World Cup, tournament debutants are set to wear "debut patches" on their inaugural matchday jerseys, which will subsequently be removed and distributed as exclusive trading cards once the agreement takes effect in 2031.
The practice began in the 2023 Major League Baseball season, after Fanatics acquired exclusive licenses to produce baseball cards for the league in 2021. While Fanatics' MLB deal was initially slated to take effect in 2025, it took over licenses to the league after acquiring previous licensee Topps in 2022.
The scarcity of such one-of-one debut cards have seen pieces retailing for thousands on online resale platforms like eBay.
The practice of issuing debut cards in trading card packs has since been replicated across franchises like Formula 1 and the NBA — other sports leagues where the now Fanatics-owned Topps previously held licenses.
"With Fanatics, we see that they are driving massive innovation in sports collectibles that does provide fans with a new, a meaningful way to engage with their favorite teams and with their favorite players," FIFA President Gianni Infantino said in a statement on May 7.
Fanatics' other moves in the sports collectibles scene have been underpinned by a similar spirit of innovation.
In 2025, the company's collectibles division opened its first brick-and-mortar store in London's Regent Street — a distinct sales approach, as rivals like Panini and pre-takeover Topps sold products through distributors or online stores.
Fanatics has also looked to celebrity personalities like Formula 1 driver Lewis Hamilton, who appeared at the opening of its Regent Street store, and social media influencer Logan Paul to drive engagement.
With its FIFA deal, Fanatics is set to take on exclusive collectibles licensing rights to the flagship event of the world's most popular sport.
The 64 games of the 2022 World Cup engaged 5 billion fans across all media channels, with the final between France and Argentina reaching 1.42 billion viewers, according to official figures from FIFA. In comparison, Super Bowl LIX in 2025 — the most-watched sports event in the U.S. — drew around 127 million viewers, Nielsen estimated.
In a May 7 interview with CNBC, Fanatics CEO Michael Rubin said that the company's collectibles division alone was expected to rake in $5 billion in revenue, while the company — which spans merchandising, a sportsbook, a prediction market, as well as an events and entertainment division — was expected to generate $14 billion in revenue.
But Fanatics' aggressive moves in the collectibles space has also drawn scrutiny.
Prior to its $500 million purchase of Topps in 2022, Fanatics acquired licenses to the MLB, NBA and NFL — all of which were initially slated to begin after the end of Topps' licenses in 2023, 2025, and 2026 respectively.
Many of the sporting franchises licensed to Fanatics also hold equity stakes in the company. In 2022, the NFL led a $1.5 billion round of funding for the company, with a $320 million stake, after its players association agreed on licensing terms with Fanatics the year before.
No such equity terms, however, have been agreed on under the FIFA-Fanatics pact, a source familiar with the matter told CNBC, who declined to be named discussing sensitive matters.
In a March report, the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP) wrote that "the market consolidation by Fanatics has fundamentally altered the merchandise and trading card market for collectors and fans."
"Before Fanatics' acquisitions, competition between Topps and Italian brand Panini drove innovation in card design, quality, and pricing. Now, with Panini's exclusive licenses expired and Topps under Fanatics control, Upper Deck remains the only competitor, and only in hockey," the AELP added.
In 2023, Panini America filed an ongoing antitrust lawsuit against Fanatics over what it claimed constituted an attempt to "monopolize the markets for Major U.S. Professional Sports Leagues trading cards."
"Without redress, consumers will suffer, prices will rise, quality will fall, and innovation will be stifled," Panini alleged in its court filing.
In its report, the AELP similarly found that collectors were reporting "significant price increases for [trading card] boxes and packs, with some products doubling in cost within a year of Fanatics taking over production."
With the introduction of products of greater rarity — like one-of-one cards — the price of collectibles naturally increases, particularly for highly coveted players.
"Historically, children and families were the core buyers," Ricardo Fort, founder of Fort Consulting, told CNBC in an email. "Today, that remains true for mass-market products, but adult collectors have become a major segment, driven by nostalgia, scarcity, and investment potential."
But while reduced competition could lead to higher prices and fewer choices, a company with broad rights could also invest more in innovation, technology, authentication and global distribution, he added.
In a recent statement to CNBC, Fanatics described Panini's 2023 allegations as "meritless," and added that the company "remains committed to creating the best possible collector experience across the globe." The company, however, declined to comment on broader monopoly claims.
After its purchase of Topps, Panini and Upper Deck — trading card producer for the National Hockey League — remain Fanatics' most credible competitors.
Although the NHL entered into a 10-year agreement with Fanatics over the production of NHL team jerseys in 2023, the league also inked a "long-term" extension of Upper Deck's trading card licenses, which began in 1990.
In January, Upper Deck also introduced one-of-one trading cards featuring autographed swatches from the game-worn jerseys of league debutants, an initiative similar to Fanatics' debut patch cards.
Apart from FIFA, Panini holds collectibles licenses to franchises like the Women's National Basketball League, NASCAR and LIV Golf.
However, questions hang over Panini's future.
In 2019, Panini America was sued for failing to fulfill requests for "redemption cards" — cards that consumers could exchange for specific autographed copies.
These cards, however, could not be redeemed as Panini had not gotten signatures from the relevant athletes at the time of sale, Larry Centola, attorney from Martzell, Bickford & Centola, and one of the plaintiffs of the lawsuit, told CNBC.
In a call with CNBC, Centola said that the firm alleged that over 10,000 collectors had been impacted by Panini's nonfulfillment of these redemption cards.
Although the case was dismissed after the firm was denied the class action certification it sought — a ruling it chose not to appeal — Centola said he still receives emails from customers with similar experiences — seven years since the lawsuit was first filed.
In October 2025, Reuters, citing sources familiar, reported that Panini had picked Citi as a financial adviser for a possible sale of the company. Citi declined to comment to CNBC on the matter.
"Panini's lawsuit is nothing more than a last-gasp, flailing effort by a company that has lost touch with its consumers and has tried unsuccessfully to sell itself for years," Fanatics wrote in its statement to CNBC.
In 2023, after Panini filed its antitrust lawsuit, Fanatics countersued Panini, claiming that "Panini has become complacent, failing to invest in marketing or innovation as it funnels profits back to its owners in Italy while openly trying to sell its business for nearly a decade." The case is ongoing.
Panini didn't respond to CNBC's requests for comment.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Antitrust exposure from consolidated control will likely constrain Fanatics' ability to fully monetize its new FIFA rights."
Fanatics' FIFA licensing win from 2031, layered on its Topps buy and NFL/NBA/MLB rights, positions it to capture a slice of the $100B sports collectibles space with $5B projected revenue. The article celebrates debut patches and retail stores but downplays how league equity stakes could intensify antitrust scrutiny rather than protect the firm. Panini's ongoing suit and AELP data on doubled box prices signal real consumer backlash risk. Upper Deck's NHL persistence and Panini's potential sale add competitive noise the piece treats as minor. Execution on global distribution may stall if regulators intervene before 2031.
League co-ownership and proven innovation in scarcity products could deter meaningful enforcement, letting Fanatics raise prices and margins without losing licenses.
"Fanatics has genuine monopoly-like power in major sports collectibles, but the 2031 FIFA deal's value hinges on whether regulatory pressure forces concessions and whether collectibles remain a $100B+ sector or revert to niche status."
Fanatics' FIFA deal is materially significant—World Cup collectibles dwarf Super Bowl viewership (1.42B vs 127M)—but the article conflates market consolidation with monopoly risk without addressing countervailing factors. Yes, Panini's exit and Upper Deck's NHL-only presence narrow competition. But the article ignores: (1) Fanatics' $14B revenue guidance assumes execution risk across five divisions; (2) collectibles are cyclical and sentiment-driven—scarcity premiums can evaporate; (3) regulatory scrutiny (AELP report, Panini lawsuit ongoing) could force licensing divestitures; (4) the 2031 FIFA start date is six years away—long enough for new entrants or league defection. Price increases post-Topps acquisition prove real, but whether that's monopoly pricing or rational scarcity-driven economics remains contested.
Fanatics' innovation (debut patches, brick-and-mortar, influencer marketing) may justify premium pricing and actually expand the addressable market beyond nostalgia collectors to younger demographics—meaning less competition could coexist with higher volumes and healthier margins.
"Fanatics' aggressive vertical integration creates an antitrust 'ticking time bomb' that threatens their long-term valuation multiples."
Fanatics is executing a classic 'vertical integration' play, but the regulatory risk is severely understated here. By securing exclusive licensing while simultaneously operating the marketplace and the retail storefront, they are creating a closed-loop ecosystem that invites aggressive antitrust scrutiny. While the $14 billion revenue projection sounds impressive, it relies on the assumption that they can maintain this monopoly without triggering a DOJ breakup. If regulators force them to divest the manufacturing arm from the marketplace platform, the valuation multiple—currently likely priced for a tech-style platform—will collapse to that of a low-margin consumer goods manufacturer.
The 'monopoly' argument ignores that Fanatics is effectively professionalizing a fragmented, legacy hobbyist market, where their scale provides the infrastructure (authentication and global distribution) that smaller players like Panini failed to deliver.
"Fanatics' FIFA exclusivity could become a multi-year, high-margin moat, but only if regulatory risk remains contained and execution scales demand for scarce debut-card products."
Fanatics extending FIFA exclusivity and expanding licensing points to a multi-year revenue engine in the sports collectibles space. The 2031 horizon creates a clear long-duration moat, with digital and physical fusion like debut patches adding scarcity and high margins. Yet the article glosses over the regulatory risk: antitrust scrutiny is rising around platform-like consolidation in consumer goods; AELP's commentary and Panini's suit underscore possible pushback that could slow license renewals or prompt concessions. Execution risk too: turning a licensing fortress into consistent profitability depends on continued demand, authentication tech, and global distribution spend. If FIFA renegotiations stall or consumer taste shifts, upside could cap quickly.
The strongest counterpoint is that regulators may not ultimately block or chill this deal; in a world that rewards scale, Fanatics’ consolidation could be seen as efficiency-led, potentially accelerating competition through better authentication tech and global reach. The risk is more about execution than legality—if Fanatics can't sustain demand or manage costs, the moat collapses.
"Fanatics' scale in authentication may become an enforced industry standard, amplifying downside if cyclical demand fades before 2031."
Gemini flags vertical integration as breakup bait but misses how Fanatics' authentication and distribution infrastructure could become the league-mandated standard that smaller rivals like Panini never achieved. This links directly to Claude's cyclical demand warning: if collector sentiment weakens before the 2031 FIFA ramp, the closed ecosystem turns into a fixed-cost trap, pressuring margins even with exclusive rights intact.
"Fanatics' licensing durability depends entirely on sustained collector demand, not on infrastructure moats—and that demand is cyclical and sentiment-driven, not structural."
Grok's fixed-cost trap insight is sharp, but it inverts the real risk. If demand weakens before 2031, Fanatics doesn't face margin pressure—it faces *license non-renewal*. Leagues will shop around if collectibles sentiment craters and Fanatics can't hit revenue targets. The moat only works if demand stays hot. Authentication infrastructure is table-stakes, not defensible. That's the execution bet nobody's fully priced.
"League equity stakes in Fanatics create a conflict of interest that protects the monopoly from market-driven license loss."
Claude, you’re missing the leverage dynamic. Leagues aren't just 'shopping around' if demand craters; they are equity partners. Fanatics has effectively turned leagues into shareholders of their own monopoly. This creates a perverse incentive where leagues prioritize Fanatics’ guaranteed license fees over competitive market health. The risk isn't license loss; it’s that the leagues are now too financially intertwined with Fanatics to allow for the regulatory or competitive shifts that would actually benefit the consumer.
"Regulatory remedies could erode Fanatics' moat and margins, making 2031 upside more about policy outcomes than demand."
Responding to Gemini: you downplay remedies risk. Even when antitrust regulators don't force a break-up, they can mandate behavioral remedies—price caps, profit-sharing with leagues, or mandated access for select competitors to data and platforms. Those could erode Fanatics' margins and the claimed moat, making 2031 FIFA upside depend more on policy outcomes than demand. The real equity risk is regulatory leverage, not just execution or consumer sentiment.
Fanatics' FIFA licensing win positions it for significant growth in the sports collectibles space, but regulatory risks, particularly antitrust scrutiny, and execution challenges could hinder its progress.
Establishing a multi-year revenue engine with exclusive FIFA licensing rights and a fusion of digital and physical collectibles.
Regulatory intervention, including potential license divestitures or behavioral remedies that could erode margins and impact the claimed moat.