Based on what I have read in FTC decisions in regard to Topps and Fleer disputes in the 60s, the 63 Fleer offering, while admired today, performed poorly in the market and was the cause of Fleer scrapping a second series. ( I have never seen nothing supporting the notion that Topps stopped it through litigation).
Topps did not have player contracts that gave them exclusive rights to produce cards with a player’s likeness, but the contracts purported to give them exclusive rights to market the cards with confections and gum. Hence the 60 Leaf marbles and Fleer cookies. The market seemingly preferred gum
I guess it is possible Fleer was looking for secondary ways to move or dispose of excess inventory.
|