gt2590
Super Moderator
I think the Licensing payment for those cards went to the Actual game, in this case the ARMY game in SA...
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Matt Wieters finally on a Topps card, sort of
- Thread starter trauty
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
I think the Licensing payment for those cards went to the Actual game, in this case the ARMY game in SA...
hofmichael
New member
What does the mlbpa license cost average out to per player?
Sent from my portable **** viewing device!
I would offer the players according to value... $25,000+ for the key guys down to 300-500 for lesser guys...
An MLBPA license costs Panini $1 mil per year (approx. $750 per player)..
The thing is that Topps only gives the top half $500, the rest zero..
BG
hofmichael
New member
This is the third year in which you have stated this. Do you have a deal with him or not?
Sent from my portable **** viewing device!
For the top guys (say Pujols or Ichiro or Hamilton), is there a difference between $500 and $25,000?
For a guy making $20mil straight salary, $500 is .003% of that salary and $25000 is .13% of that salary. So, for a person with an income nf $50,000, that is the difference between $1.50 and $65. Neither are exactly enough for me to really change my behavior, especially if I were an ego driven person and the $1.50 was from the gold standard company to associate with.
I would assume the offering more aspect would also include some exclusivity (I mean, why else offer 4000% percent more than the going rate of $500?). If I'm a guy just making that $50k, is the extra $60 really enough for me to ditch association with the established brand and go exclusively with the startup?
Or, would you pay them more even if you didn't get exclusivity, just to make Topps pay more (I can see exactly why this would be good for you).
notjomommasclint
Active member
I once saw Elvis in a Florida shoneys. Our stares got pleasantly tangled, then I extended my hand to the stranger with a warm smile and soulful eyes.
So no actual money went to the players? That's less than $5..
Obviously less than $5 because he would be sued by multiple families if he screwed up their eligibility.
You are contrasting paid professional athletes vs amateurs.
Mighty Bombjack
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 6,115
- 12
This isn't true, or at least it wasn't when I worked at topps ten years ago. At that time, every single player who would release their rights got 5 dollars for doing so, but once they were actually used on a card they got substantially more (I wanna say 2K, but that may be wrong-I do know it was enough for those minor leaguers to really want that check once they hit Bowman).
BG has always blasted Topps for under-paying players, starting in the Razor days, and Weiters seems to have been spoiled by his Razor money.
BTW, how did that business model work out, BG? You sure espoused the benefits of exclusivity when exercised by individual players, but when exercised by the league, lawsuits are warranted? I personally think Topps knows what they're doing in this regard, despite their numerous shortcomings.
notjomommasclint
Active member
Using this quote (below) I am comparing. Saying $500 is a crummy deal and $5 is worse seems a bit two sided for a company that offers players who are compensated zero. I do understand that the license to produce has a fee.. But so does the licensing fee for MLB.. Unless the hs kids at the game are obligated to sign by accepting. Which sounds like exploitation. (Yes that last sentence is tongue in cheek)
gt2590
Super Moderator
I kinda view it like a Bowl Game is for the College kids.
The "swag bag" they get, the extra exposure and the actual experience itself is their "payment" and the Game itself makes out a like a Champ (or thief, depending how you view it :lol
.
The NCAA did just lose a big suit by former players over Video games and DVDs that should send some money to some older players...
The "swag bag" they get, the extra exposure and the actual experience itself is their "payment" and the Game itself makes out a like a Champ (or thief, depending how you view it :lol
.The NCAA did just lose a big suit by former players over Video games and DVDs that should send some money to some older players...
It is part of their deal of accepting to play in the game, just like they are required to do some charity events.
notjomommasclint
Active member
I kinda view it like a Bowl Game is for the College kids.
The "swag bag" they get, the extra exposure and the actual experience itself is their "payment" and the Game itself makes out a like a Champ (or thief, depending how you view it :lol
The NCAA did just lose a big suit by former players over Video games and DVDs that should send some money to some older players...
I'm not arguing that Brian.. I see and understand that.. My point is not based on the NCAA eligibility but producing a product that has player autos with no cost (excluding licensing) seems just as crummy from a financial point.
On the flip side of the same coin I'm sure that high school players get the same thrill being on cardboard that those $5 minor leaguers do.
after reading this thread, I think my understanding of the MLBPA license is wrong. If Topps has to contract with each individual player to use their name and likeness, what is the point of Topps getting a MLBPA license? I had thought the MLBPA license would give topps rights to use any union member's name and likeness on officially license MLBPA products so that makes Topps getting players to sign individual contracts a waste of effort unless it's a CYA to any potential lawsuits over names and likenesses.
I do, but I heard he is not renewing contract with Topps
hofmichael
New member
Topps opts not to get a mlbpa contract. That is why they sign each player to an individual contract.
Sent from my portable **** viewing device!
My point was NO real celebrity would ever license their image for 500.00
Maybe a few players are starting to realize it is a crummy deal..
BG
Ps- the razor model was profitable..
The reason it wasn't continued had nothing to do with the deals and everything to do with consumer dislike of exclusives and some "behind the scenes" compensation/benefits (and no, I can not elaborate due to signing a confidentiality agreement...)
Maybe a few players are starting to realize it is a crummy deal..
BG
Ps- the razor model was profitable..
The reason it wasn't continued had nothing to do with the deals and everything to do with consumer dislike of exclusives and some "behind the scenes" compensation/benefits (and no, I can not elaborate due to signing a confidentiality agreement...)
Last edited:
notjomommasclint
Active member
Because of the inability to properly compensate players I'm wicked against using their cards an signatures in products.
This is true..
