I agree totally with what you said.
But how forthcoming are the companies being with the agents/athletes?
For example, if I started up a company right now making non-licensed hockey cards, and wanted to sign a player to an exclusive, it is entirely possible that I may "fudge the facts" so to speak. I may tell the agent/athlete that my sales are through the roof, and by signing to my company that the athlete will get lots of exposure, I may exaggerate my financial standing to make the player assume that my company is in fine financial form, or I may make my company's standing within the hobby seem greater than it is in order to entice the athlete to sign with my company.
Using the companies with a stake in the game right now, if I am Upper Deck, am I using the fact that I can offer the athlete a chance to sign cards depicting them in their team jerseys as a selling point? Is Leaf telling the athletes that they CAN'T, and that many collectors will snub the products as a result, thereby limiting the athlete's exposure? Is Upper Deck using the exclusive to coerce athletes, but neglecting to tell them of how disenfranchised many collectors are with their lack of QC, redemptions and shoddy customer service?
I am just curious how many of these exclusive athletes understand all of the little nuances that can affect this hobby.
I think 99.9% of the players don't care if stuff is licensed or not because they aren't card collectors, and frankly don't give a damn. The only people that actually care about this are hard core collectors. Casual collectors won't really care. Hockey fans, but not card collectors, will think that we have OCD, and ask "what's the big deal?", and we respond by going on a 30 minute rant explaining the nuances of the card collecting hobby to people who couldn't care less, and haven't heard of Upper Deck or Leaf. "What???!!!!"
It's all about the money for the players and agent. It's a business contract. But we as card collectors, hope and wish it was different and that there is change coming. Pssst...it's not.
In response to the part in bold above:
Is a player/agent going to think that by signing with UD instead of Leaf, that it will have any impact on their marketability and that it will help lure other non-card companies to get him to sign stuff?? Absolutely not. Card companies do not have that strong of a brand appeal.
This is a one way street. The player helps sell cards/product. The agent is the one that is going to merchandising companies saying that by using their client, that it will increase sales, and that the fees would be offset by the increased profits. Not the other way around.
The only companies that can say that they can raise the marketability of the player are nationally established companies with strong brands. Sorry to say, the card collecting industry just isn't that big.
So the same applies to the NHL brand. The NHL does not need Upper Deck or Leaf. Upper Deck/Leaf needs the NHL/players to sell their cards. The NHL awards it's license based on the potential success and financial stability of they company. So you have to be a big baller to play with the NHL.
The opposite holds true too. If the player/NHL think your company isn't going to be successful, based on your business plan and your Dragon's Den pitch, they're walking away. Because in the long run, you won't be able to pay their fees. It'll take more than a smooth talking salesman to get them to sign on the dotted line. There are a dozen of those a day coming to them with various products.
Also, this is not a partnership. It's a licensing agreement. You pay a fee to get the NHL brand on your products. As long as you pay the fee, they don't care about the details if your clients are happy with the product. That's for you to worry about. You start telling them about the details of your company sales strategy, explaining the impact of exclusives, and limited print runs, etc. and all they hear is "blah blah blah blah".
