Photo by Mick Haupt on Unsplash
The Box You Bought Cost More Than It Should Have — Maybe
Eighty percent. That is the share of the licensed sports trading card market that Fanatics is estimated to control through exclusive deals with the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL. In most industries, a single supplier holding four out of five dollars in a category would already be a regulatory file. In sports cards, it is simply the business model — and as of September 23, 2026, it is the business model a cluster of federal lawsuits is trying to take apart.
According to Google News, which surfaced the Law.com report on the matter, antitrust complaints have been stacking up against TikTok, Fanatics and the NFL over the sports collectibles market, with filings dating to December 2024 alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Law.com's framing emphasized the pile-up itself — three defendants, overlapping theories, arriving close together rather than as one isolated grievance. Sports Business Journal has separately documented the scale of the underlying deals: multi-year, league-wide exclusives worth billions. Bloomberg Law's coverage has focused on the narrower legal question, which is the one that actually decides these cases: whether exclusive licensing in a collectibles market crosses from aggressive dealmaking into restraint of trade.
The bolded thesis, up front: exclusivity is not illegal, and that single sentence is why these suits are much harder than the 80% figure makes them look.
The Common Belief: A Monopoly Share Means a Monopoly Case
The intuitive read goes like this. One company controls the overwhelming majority of licensed cards. Prices went up. Therefore, monopoly. Case closed.
In plain terms, that is not how Section 2 of the Sherman Act works. The statute reads against monopolization — the acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power through exclusionary conduct — not against being large, being popular, or winning a bidding war fairly. A court would likely start by asking two separate questions. First: what is the relevant market? Second: did the defendant's conduct exclude rivals for reasons other than competing better?
Market definition is where a lot of collectibles theories go to die. Is the market "NFL-licensed trading cards"? If so, an exclusive league deal looks close to definitional monopoly. Or is it "sports collectibles" broadly — a category the research puts at roughly $26 billion globally in 2024, encompassing memorabilia, autographs, game-used items and unlicensed product? Under the broader definition, the NFL card segment the research pegs at roughly $5 billion to $7 billion is somewhere between a fifth and a quarter of the whole. A defendant that controls 80% of a $5–7 billion slice looks very different from one controlling 80% of $26 billion, and the plaintiffs and defendants will fight over that boundary before they ever argue about pricing.
Here is the arithmetic the headlines skip. If Fanatics holds 80%+ of licensed cards and NFL cards are the $5–7 billion segment of a $26 billion market, then the company's exclusive-licensed NFL position represents on the order of $4.0 to $5.6 billion in annual category volume — call it 15% to 22% of the global collectibles market by the research's own numbers. That is enormous commercially. Whether it is "monopoly power" is a legal conclusion that depends entirely on which of those two denominators a judge accepts.
Where It Breaks Down: The League Is Not a Neutral Seller
The non-obvious point in this dispute is not about Fanatics at all. It is about the NFL.
A single manufacturer signing an exclusive with a single team would be unremarkable. But a sports league is a joint venture of competing clubs that pooled their intellectual property and then sold it as one block. That structure is precisely what the Supreme Court addressed in American Needle v. NFL (2010), which held that NFL teams licensing their marks collectively can be treated as separate economic actors subject to Section 1 — the part of the Sherman Act covering agreements in restraint of trade — rather than automatically immunized as a single entity. That precedent is the hinge. Without it, the league's licensing block is mostly unreachable. With it, every collective league exclusive is at least reviewable.
Note what American Needle did not do: it did not declare exclusive licensing illegal. It sent the case back for rule-of-reason analysis — a balancing test weighing anticompetitive harm against procompetitive justification. Leagues have real justifications available: quality control over counterfeits, brand coherence, and the argument that a single well-capitalized partner invests more in the category than four undercapitalized ones would.
The steelman for Fanatics is worth stating plainly, because a skeptic will raise it immediately. Before consolidation, the card market was fragmented and, by many collectors' accounts, chaotic on authentication and print runs. Fanatics bought Topps' sports card business for approximately $500 million in January 2022. A defense lawyer will say that purchase brought capital, distribution and anti-counterfeiting infrastructure to a category that needed it — and that higher prices reflect a genuine collector boom, not extraction.
The counter-argument, which legal experts in this space have voiced, is that exclusive agreements between leagues and a single manufacturer raise serious antitrust concerns specifically when they eliminate competition rather than organize it, and antitrust attorneys note the predictable result: consumers pay more and innovation slows when one firm controls an entire licensed category.
The number that cuts hardest against the "healthy consolidation" story comes from primary data rather than litigation rhetoric. FTC merger review data indicates sports collectibles industry concentration rose 340% between 2019 and 2024. That is not a plaintiff's estimate; it is the regulator's own lens on the sector.
Chart: The contested denominator. Plaintiffs will argue the relevant market is the NFL card segment the research values at roughly $5–7 billion; defendants will argue it is the roughly $26 billion global collectibles market (2024 figures, per the reporting summarized above). Same conduct, very different market-share math.
Where TikTok Fits — and Why That Part Is the Thinnest
TikTok is the defendant that makes this story modern and also the one whose exposure is least clearly documented in the public record. The reported theory concerns exclusive partnership or distribution arrangements in the collectibles market — in practice, the live "card break" commerce that migrated onto social video, where sellers open packs on stream and viewers buy slots in real time.
A platform that grants preferential distribution to one seller in a category it also monetizes is a genuinely novel antitrust posture, and it is where the legal technology conversation actually bites: platform exclusivity is enforced by code and ranking algorithms, not by a signed page a plaintiff can attach as Exhibit A. The AI connection is structural. Recommendation systems, algorithmic authentication tooling and NFT-adjacent marketplaces create distribution advantages that are hard to observe from the outside and harder still to discover in litigation. AI legal tools built for contract review can surface an exclusivity clause in a licensing agreement in seconds — but no contract review workflow reads a ranking model. That evidentiary asymmetry is why plaintiffs' firms increasingly pair traditional legal software with data-science experts, and why platform antitrust cases tend to survive or die at the discovery stage rather than at trial.
It is a pattern that rhymes with what Smart Crypto AI noted about audit certificates: a credential or a visible document tells you far less about the underlying system than most buyers assume.
One honest caveat. Law.com's primary article sits behind a paywall, which limits direct comparison of specific claims across outlets. Where this post could not verify a detail independently, it has described the allegation as an allegation — because that is what it is. None of these complaints has been proven.
A Better Frame: What a Collector or Reseller Should Actually Do
The realistic range of outcomes is narrower than either side's rhetoric. Full structural breakup of a licensing regime is rare. Negotiated changes to exclusivity terms, shortened deal lengths, or carve-outs for smaller manufacturers are far more common landing spots — and those are the outcomes worth planning around.
If you flip cards through a marketplace or run breaks on a social platform, the exclusivity risk that touches you is contractual, not constitutional. Look specifically for unilateral-amendment clauses (the platform's right to change the rules without your consent), category-restriction language, and termination-without-cause provisions. Those are the terms that can end an income stream overnight regardless of how the antitrust suits resolve.
Antitrust damages actions frequently produce class settlements for indirect purchasers — and eligibility usually turns on proof of purchase within a defined window. Keeping dated receipts for sealed product costs nothing now and is the difference between a claim and a shrug later. This is jurisdiction-dependent: state indirect-purchaser rules vary substantially, and federal Illinois Brick doctrine limits who can recover in federal court.
Print runs under an exclusive regime are set by one decision-maker. If exclusivity terms loosen through settlement or expiry, supply assumptions baked into current valuations change with them. That is a portfolio consideration, not a legal one — but it flows directly from the litigation.
Bottom Line
Our read: the 340% concentration increase in FTC merger review data from 2019 to 2024 is the strongest single fact the plaintiffs have, because it is regulatory rather than adversarial — but on balance, the more likely outcome here is negotiated modification of exclusive terms rather than a court ordering the NFL to split its licensing block. Market-definition fights consume years, and the defendants have a coherent procompetitive story about authentication and counterfeiting that a rule-of-reason analysis has to weigh seriously. The 80% figure wins headlines; the denominator wins the case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Fanatics' exclusive license with the NFL, and how long does it run?
Fanatics holds exclusive licensing agreements covering trading cards and memorabilia with the NFL as well as MLB, the NBA and the NHL. Sports Business Journal has reported these as multi-year, billion-dollar arrangements. Exact term lengths and renewal triggers are commercial terms that are not fully public, which is itself one of the obstacles plaintiffs face in framing their complaints.
Why is TikTok being sued for antitrust violations over sports collectibles?
The reported claims concern exclusive partnership or distribution arrangements in the sports collectibles market — essentially, allegations that platform-level preferences shape which sellers reach buyers. These are allegations in complaints filed in U.S. federal court under the Sherman Antitrust Act, not findings. As of September 23, 2026, nothing has been proven against TikTok on this theory in the public record reviewed here.
How does the Fanatics monopoly claim affect sports card prices for collectors?
Antitrust attorneys quoted in coverage of the sector argue that when one company controls an entire licensed category, consumers face higher prices and reduced innovation. The honest answer is that no public figure isolates how much of recent card pricing comes from exclusivity versus a genuine collector demand boom. Plaintiffs must prove that link with economic evidence — it is not assumed by the court.
Can the NFL legally grant exclusive licensing rights to one company?
Generally yes — exclusivity is lawful in itself. The complication is that a league licensing the pooled marks of separately owned clubs can be treated as an agreement among competitors under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, per American Needle v. NFL (2010). That means the arrangement is reviewable under a rule-of-reason balancing test, not automatically immune and not automatically illegal.
Disclaimer: This article is editorial commentary for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No independent product testing was conducted. Antitrust outcomes depend heavily on jurisdiction and on facts developed in discovery; consult a qualified attorney in your state about your specific situation. All lawsuit claims described here are unproven allegations. Research based on publicly available sources current as of September 23, 2026.