Does anyone know the answer?

[droid714]

For many years I've wondered why Topps, Fleer and Philadelphia each issued the football card sets that they did in the 1960's.

After buying out Bowman, Topps had a monopoly on football cards and the NFL was the only "major" American football league. Then, in 1960, the AFL is created to compete with the NFL. One would have assumed that Topps would have made football cards of both leagues, but apparently opted to only make an NFL set, while Fleer, which had never been a real player in the sports card market, steps up and makes an AFL football set.

The following year, both companies put out football sets that included both the AFL and the NFL. The next two years, 1962 and 1963, Topps went back to making NFL only sets and Fleer made AFL only sets.

Then suddenly, in 1964, Topps flips over to making AFL only football sets and a small, almost unknown gum company, Philadelphia, steps into the vacuum and produces NFL only sets. This arrangement lasts for four seasons, 1964 through 1967.

In 1968, the AFL and NFL merge into the singular NFL. The Philadelphia Gum Co. fades into sports card oblivion and Topps becomes the only company making football cards.

The questions I have are why would Topps allow Fleer to cut into their football card market when the AFL was created? Historically, Topps was very protective of it's market. Why not make football card sets of both leagues and shut Fleer out of the market entirely?

Second, since Topps dominated the sports card market, why would they end up making card sets of the AFL, beginning in 1964, while newcomer Philadelphia made card sets of the older, and presumably more popular, NFL? One would assume that Topps could have had their choice of which league to associate with. Why not stick with the NFL and force Philadelphia into making cards of the "inferior" AFL? Better still, why not just start making sets of both leagues in 1960 and continue to do so until the merger in 1968?

I've never been able to find any information on this subject. Does anybody know anything about this?

[statsfax]

I'm guessing this was a licensing issue, but I have always wondered the same thing. I hope someone knows the answer.

[droid714]

I found an article online that mentions in passing that Topps held the NFL license from 1956 through 1963 and that it hadn't been renewed, allowing Philadelphia to pick it up from 1964 through 1967. There was no explanation as to why Topps would allow the contract to expire without renewing it.

It probably came down to money, as usual, but Philadelphia was able to pony up the cash, so why couldn't Topps?

And why Philadelphia? They were essentially unknown in the trading card market, yet they are able to swing a four year contract with the NFL. Why not Fleer or Leaf, both of which had a much bigger presence in the trading card market?