Inside Panini’s ‘weird’ sales pitch as it battles Fanatics for the future of sports cards

Panini, the trading card and collectibles company, is entrenched in a court battle with rival Fanatics.

Earlier this year, it was also put up for sale.

In court documents, Panini portrays itself as a company unable to compete in key markets against its most dominant rival. Meanwhile, in private meetings with potential buyers, Panini is presenting a rosy outlook for its financial future, according to multiple sources and documents obtained by The Athletic.

Statements made by Panini inside a private sales pitch meeting, as well as within a 90-page confidential document given to potential buyers earlier this year and seen by The Athletic, raise questions about Panini’s court claims that the company would be seriously harmed without NFL, NBA and other top league licenses — the key to allowing team names and logos to appear on sports cards.

In its ongoing lawsuit against Fanatics, Panini claims that “any firm that fails to win the rights to produce and sell trading cards for players of at least one of the Leagues (MLB, NFL, NBA) is eliminated as a competitor” in those markets. Though manufacturers can still make cards without league licenses as long as they have athlete image licenses from the corresponding players’ association, those cards are generally less desired by collectors and thus less valuable, often disparagingly referred to as “pajama cards” (since the Photoshopped, unbranded uniforms look like pajamas). In its lawsuit, Panini refers to these as “low-quality cards.”

In documents provided in a sales pitch meeting, however, Panini stresses the profitability and success of those same cards.

Fanatics has denied the claims in Panini’s lawsuit and alleged in a countersuit that Panini embarked on a “protracted, unlawful, and deceitful campaign of unfair trade practices, strong-arm tactics, and tortious misconduct” in an attempt to force Fanatics to pay an extortionate amount for Panini to terminate its licenses early in 2022.

For card collectors, a lot is at stake with Panini’s lawsuit against Fanatics. The case could determine which entities will shape the future of the sports card industry. Panini is asking a U.S. District Court to divest all league licenses, as well as Topps, from Fanatics to “restore competition” within the industry. If a verdict goes in Panini’s favor, this would place all of Fanatics’ sports licenses back up for sale and tear away Topps, which was acquired by Fanatics in 2022.

Asked for comment, Panini referred The Athletic to Stuart Singer, the company’s legal counsel in the Fanatics litigation. Singer confirmed Panini was potentially open to a sale, saying: “Panini, like other companies, considers its strategic options. There is no agreement in place for sale at the company. No negotiations presently for the sale of the company.”

Singer also said there’s nothing inconsistent about Panini trying to sell the company while at the same time fighting Fanatics for damages in the court case. “Parties who bring claims are required to try to mitigate their damages to whatever transactions or other business means (that) they can,” Singer said.

But Panini’s own claims and statements while trying to sell the company are in tension with the position the company is taking in its court case against Fanatics.

An example of a fully licensed MLB card produced by Fanatics-owned Topps, left, and a “pajama” card produced by Panini-owned Donruss. (Photos courtesy of eBay)

‘The weirdest experience I’ve ever had’

The Athletic obtained a copy of the 90-page confidential packet created by Panini to present to potential buyers of the company. Numerous times within the packet, Panini claims it — or the buyer that purchases it — can remain relevant and even thrive within the sports trading card space without licenses.

One of those statements within the sales presentation packet read: “Panini is capable of consistently developing appealing collections regardless of available and agreed licensing options.” On the same page, the company touts (emphasis Panini’s), “Panini’s unofficial collections have proven to be capable of outperforming official products.”

In one notable claim in Panini’s sales presentation, it boasts about the success of its unlicensed 1994 World Cup sticker/card album. In a bolded, capitalized headline, Panini says, “In the only edition Panini was not the official FIFA licensee, its unofficial album outsold the official one by 18 times.”

“I think that’s bad for Panini in the lawsuit because their whole theme (in court) is that without the licenses, you cannot compete,” said Paul Lesko, a St. Louis-based attorney who tracks collectibles-related legal cases. “Trying to add value to the company by saying, ‘Hey, licenses or no licenses, we can compete.’ … The ‘unofficial’ license discussions will likely benefit Fanatics in the antitrust litigation.”

Singer said: “I think there’s a difference between if you can be successful, which can be interpreted as making some money, and the question of what it does to your business as to not having those licenses. It is our view that Panini’s value was very substantially damaged by the actions of Fanatics in respect to those licenses, as well as the other anticompetitive conduct, which, remember, goes beyond the licenses.”

The Athletic spoke to two executives with a potential buyer who attended a sales presentation at Panini’s headquarters in Milan, Italy, earlier this year. The executives spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions between Panini and the other company, as well as the contents of the packet distributed at the meeting, were confidential.

One source called the meeting “the weirdest experience I’ve ever had.” Both sources said that in Panini’s pitch, the company claimed to be “worth more money without the licenses” than it was with them.

The two sources wondered how Panini could present itself within the lawsuit against Fanatics as a company unable to compete, while pitching to potential buyers that Panini is now worth more money than before.

Traditionally, card companies negotiate with leagues for the rights to use team names and logos, and separately with players associations for athlete image rights over a set period of time. Fanatics allowed leagues like the NFL, NBA and MLB, along with the corresponding players associations, to become equity partners with the company as part of its deals. In Fanatics’ view, the company offered a better deal to acquire the licenses. In Panini’s view, according to the lawsuit, Fanatics induced the leagues and players’ unions to “acquiesce in Fanatics’ monopolization scheme, effectively precluding them from dealing with Panini and other competitors in any way that might disadvantage Fanatics.”

Panini alleges that Fanatics acquired exclusive, long-term licensing deals that will block competitors from the market. The NBA license is exclusive for 10 years, and the NFL and MLB licenses are exclusive for 20 years. Panini alleges this is unprecedented in the industry. However, prior to being owned by Fanatics, Topps was previously involved in decades-long litigation over its exclusive rights to make baseball cards.

Both sources said the crux of Panini’s claim to potential buyers is that the company is more valuable without the licenses because Panini will no longer have to pay for those licenses.

Singer was taken aback by the sources’ descriptions of what was said inside the sales pitch meeting.

“I would be very surprised, in context, at such a statement,” Singer said. “Because it stands to reason that if you have the official licenses to manufacture trading cards, that is very valuable. It’s worth an awful lot if you have them. … That’s not to say you can’t build a successful business without those, but I really don’t agree that there’s no value to having the official licenses and that you could be better off without it. I’m very surprised to hear that because that would not be, in my view, correct.”

Meanwhile, Panini is facing legal action from another trading card company. Tennessee-based Wild Card, known for its autographed cards featuring top athletes and celebrities, filed an antitrust lawsuit earlier this month against Panini America.

Wild Card is alleging Panini used anticompetitive conduct and monopolization dating back to 2021 in an attempt to push Wild Card out of the market. In the lawsuit, Wild Card alleges that Panini leveraged its market power to enter into unlawful contracts, combinations and conspiracies with distributors and manufacturers.

Panini did not respond to a request for comment on Wild Card’s allegations. Singer said the Wild Card and Fanatics lawsuits are totally separate and that one won’t complicate the other.

How many licenses are too many?

Compare Panini’s license portfolio in 2009, when it began acquiring them en masse, to what Fanatics will have by early 2026. The companies’ slates are near-mirror images, outside of Fanatics’ hold on MLB licensing, which Panini never possessed:

In Singer’s opinion, there are two major differences between how many licenses Panini previously held and how many Fanatics will possess by early 2026.

“One, Panini never had the collection of all six licenses that Fanatics will have,” Singer said. “Exclusive licenses with respect to the leagues and player associations — for Major League Baseball, for the NBA, and for the NFL, thus tying up the entire market for a long period. That is unprecedented.

“And I think the second thing is how we got there. Panini started with shorter-term, non-exclusive licenses. They proved themselves in the market. They made good products, and in some cases, that led to the longest-tenured agreements after they proved themselves in the market.”

Lesko said, though, that he feels no judge will want to decide how many licenses are too many for one company to hold or how long is too long to hold them, particularly after Panini just had a lengthy period of exclusivity itself.

“So what is the illegal time?” Lesko asked. “Is it one year longer? 
Two years longer? One day longer?”

No sale to Fanatics on the horizon

Reuters and Italian financial newspaper Il Sole 24 recently reported that Panini has been exploring strategic options, which could include selling the company. One of those reports pointed to Topps — owned by Fanatics — as a possible suitor for Panini.

Fanatics CEO Michael Rubin emphatically told The Athletic that his company won’t be purchasing Panini.

“We have no interest in buying Panini,” Rubin said. “We have been and continue to be relentlessly focused on enhancing the collector experience. We’ve hired over 1,400 great new team members, invested close to a billion dollars and delivered new and compelling product innovations to elevate the hobby. As such, there is no reason for us to buy Panini, which has invested next to nothing and added minimal, if any, value to the industry.”

Singer also shut down any idea of Panini being sold to Fanatics, saying, “I can tell you that Panini has absolutely no intent of selling to Fanatics.”

Another interesting twist within this battle between Panini and Fanatics came before the lawsuits commenced. In 2022, Panini and Fanatics negotiated a transfer for accelerated licensing rights for several leagues, most notably the NFL and NBA. If the deal had occurred, Fanatics would’ve started earlier on the NBA and NFL rights it had already won, and Panini would have exited its agreements earlier than its contractual end date for a specified financial payment.

Fanatics has said publicly that the deal with Panini would’ve cost more than $2 billion. The deal never happened, though.

One major sticking point in Fanatics’ countersuit against Panini involves Fanatics’ mistrust of the profit projections Panini presented during those failed negotiations. Fanatics alleges Panini negotiated on the accelerated rights deal “in bad faith by slow-walking negotiations for several months and ultimately trying to pass off knowingly inflated earnings projections that translated to an unreasonably high early-termination fee.”

Fanatics claims within the countersuit that Panini “knew that it was materially underperforming against its annual projections by nearly 30 percent.” Fanatics also claims Panini America CEO Mark Warsop admitted to Fanatics privately several times that “Panini was maintaining two sets of projections during negotiations with Fanatics: (1) an internal set that Panini used and relied on to properly budget and operate its business, and which had been approved by Panini’s Italian owners, and (2) a separate, much rosier set of falsified projections that were carefully and systematically fed to Fanatics for its consumption at the direction, and with the endorsement, of Panini’s Italian owners.”

Singer denied that, saying: “We completely disagree with that and don’t think that’s accurate. They knew very well what the numbers were. They had complete access to Panini’s financial information.”

In interviews, Fanatics executives, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to freely discuss a sensitive topic, provided an example of the discrepancies alleged in the complaint. During the accelerated license negotiations in 2022, Panini provided them with EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization expenses) projections around $790 million in 2023 for the licenses Panini seemed set to sell, which included the NFL and NBA. Fanatics also provided The Athletic with a Jan. 26, 2023, email Panini sent to Fanatics with these figures. Fanatics said Panini submitted a similar EBITDA projection for 2024 to it.

Those projections are more than 40 percent higher than what Panini earned in actual EBITDA in 2023 and 2024 for the entire company, according to Panini’s 2025 sales presentation documents. Panini showed an EBITDA amount of around $447 million (€384 million) in 2023 and $453 million (€389 million) in 2024.

Panini had not responded to a request for comment on these specific financial claims at the time of publication.

Panini and Fanatics remain far off from their trial date, which is currently set for April 26, 2027. Barring a settlement, this conflict will continue to hang over the sports card hobby for some time.

The Athletic maintains full editorial independence in all our coverage. When you click or make purchases through our links, we may earn a commission.