By now most collectors have heard of Collectors’ purchase of Beckett. This is on the heels of Collectors’ purchase of SGC, meaning that PSA, Beckett, and SGC have the same owner. The result is that Collectors now controls over 80% of the sports card grading industry. On the surface, it sounds a lot like a monopoly, and possible antitrust violations.

Not long after the announcement, Congressman Pat Ryan (D-NY) wrote a letter demanding an FTC investigation into the matter. You can read the full letter here.

Most consumers can grasp the idea of “monopoly = bad,” but some of the points in Ryan’s letter are really insightful beyond the obvious. As I read through the entire argument, I think he has a case. A full FTC investigation seems at least possible if not likely, and Collectors will definitely have some explaining to do.

To me, the most compelling point is “Good-Faith Representations” (below). It’s hard to argue that SGC isn’t being intentionally run into the ground currently. And this contrasts with the few public statements made by Collectors after the acquisition.

Time will tell whether these are just temporary “shrinking pains.” But absent any communication from SGC (which no longer has a direct President) to the contrary, their sudden decline in service, output, and market share has been shocking.

Another aspect of the complaint speaks almost specifically to vintage collectors: is there a reasonable alternative to PSA / SGC / Beckett for vintage card grading? Not really.

Here are the main points from Ryan’s letter, along with my analysis:

Monopoly

“Whether Collectors acquired SGC and Beckett specifically to eliminate competition, and whether internal documents reveal a deliberate strategy of monopolization.”

Analysis: The first part seems obvious enough–of course the acquisitions were made with the intent to eliminate competition. The question here is whether internal documents exist that might prove deliberate intent. Antitrust is more about effects than intents–but intention certainly matters.

Acquisition Pattern

“Whether Collectors’ systematic roll-up strategy violates Section 5 of the FTC Act as conduct that inherently produces the cumulative harms the antitrust laws were designed to prevent.”

Analysis: This part of the Act deals with “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” It gives the Federal Trade Commission authority to investigate businesses, stop harmful conduct, and seek remedies when companies mislead consumers or engage in practices that cause substantial consumer harm that isn’t reasonably avoidable and isn’t outweighed by benefits.

One question here is whether consumers have a “reasonable” means for avoiding doing business with the Collectors brands. For vintage collectors, I would say the answer to that question is a resounding no. PSA and SGC are currently the only reasonable choices for vintage card grading. And don’t forget that for many, sports cards aren’t just a hobby–they are a business.

Regulatory Evasion

“Whether Collēctīvus Holdings functioned as a pass-through entity to evade merger scrutiny, and the extent of Collectors’ involvement in the 2024 acquisition of Beckett.”

Analysis: This one might be pure speculation. I’m not aware of–nor can I locate information pertaining to–any relationship between Collēctīvus Holdings and Collectors (formerly known as Collectors Universe and Collectors Holdings). If there is some sort of undisclosed relationship between then uncovered by the FTC, this might equate to a smoking gun.

Good-Faith Representations

“Whether the post-acquisition marginalization of SGC was contrary to representations made at the time of the merger, and if those actions warrant a court-ordered divestiture or unwinding of the deal.”

Analysis: This is the point I feel most strongly about. There is no question that SGC has been intentionally diminished by Collectors, post-acquisition. PSA has taken over SGC real estate, depleted their resources, and haphazardly positioned SGC as a “boutique grader.”

In practice, SGC is currently voiceless and seemingly aimless. If the intent is to return SGC to a vintage-specialty grader, bring it on. That would be smart and intentional. SGC could stop grading TCG entirely and just focus on sports. There has not been a single statement made “from SGC” to its customers since its President departed. Grading specials have been discontinued. Bulk submitter discounts have been eliminated. SGC’s presence at shows is close to nil. Turn times have ballooned and service has slowed. This is 100% by intent and design.

Other Points

There are several other points in Ryan’s letter–all compelling to some degree. I leave them here for you to peruse. Cardhound will continue to follow this story.

• Erosion of Competition: How the elimination of independent rivals has directly impacted consumer pricing, service quality, and turnaround times across the industry.
• Price and Policy Coordination: What safeguards, if any, prevent Collectors from coordinating pricing, grading standards, and competitive behavior across its three nominally “independent” brands.
• Barriers to Entry: What structural barriers now prevent new competitors from entering the market, specifically regarding the control of the limited labor pool of professional graders.
• Market Manipulation: How vertical integration — controlling the grading process, the pricing data through CardLadder, and the marketplace itself — creates unique opportunities for market manipulation and unfair self-dealing.