[tate31nym]

What year did the non-MLB licensed cards first start appearing? 

I know there have always been unlicensed cards but I'm talking the mass stuff like Panini, Donruss, etc.

[jack pfiester]

Goes all the way back to Broder's in the 1980's.

Also, 2010 Upper Deck was unlicensed. That was the final year they made baseball cards.

[Phillies_Joe]

Panini - 2011

[PhoenixRisen]

Topps was granted the exclusive MLB license in 2009. Therefore, it was right after that point that the other companies (Upper Deck, Panini (who had just purchased Donruss that same year), etc...) began producing unlicensed cards.

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com/ml...ard-maker/

[hckydv7]

The 2010 Upper Deck was licensed by the MLBPA but not by MLP until an agreement was made between UD and MLB that they could not make anything else, nut could sell the product they had produced. This makes the release a licensed release legally from all I have read.

Panini products are licensed by the MLBPA only and that is why logos and team names are airbrushed out. But still a licensed product.

[PhoenixRisen]

The 2010 Upper Deck was licensed by the MLBPA but not by MLP until an agreement was made between UD and MLB that they could not make anything else, nut could sell the product they had produced. This makes the release a licensed release legally from all I have read.

Panini products are licensed by the MLBPA only and that is why logos and team names are airbrushed out. But still a licensed product.

When people talk about a card being licensed, they are referring to being licensed by the league, not the players association. If there wasn't a players association license, there wouldn't even be unlicensed cards because you couldn't use the picture of the player. And what kind of card would that be? Yes, Topps currently has both licenses (mlbpa and mlb) and Panini only has MLBPA license. But we refer to Panini as unlicensed because the only license that really matters is the MLB license. It is a given that if a company makes a card with a player on it, they have the player's association license. So we ignore that in the discussion.

[ZSDOne]

When people talk about a card being licensed, they are referring to being licensed by the league, not the players association. If there wasn't a players association license, there wouldn't even be unlicensed cards because you couldn't use the picture of the player. And what kind of card would that be?  Yes, Topps currently has both licenses (mlbpa and mlb) and Panini only has MLBPA license. But we refer to Panini as unlicensed because the only license that really matters is the MLB license. It is a given that if a company makes a card with a player on it, they have the player's association license. So we ignore that in the discussion.

While that is the way "licensed" cards are generally understood, it is not really accurate.  It's also not really accurate to say that you need to have a players association license to show current players.

Players are free to license their images to products outside of the player's association license - I don't think the Player's Association can legally (as a matter of federal labor law) prevent their members from entering into outside image licenses or endorsement deals and even if they could legally require such, they would never push the issue because they would be very quickly become decertified as unions if they tried to stop players from entering into their own licensing deals.  However, what having the Player's Association license does is that it prevents players from refusing to participate in the cards.  Lebron James can sign a contract with Upper Deck and appear in Upper Deck products - however, he can't stop Panini from issuing NBA licensed Lebron James cards using the NBAPA license (there are just no James autograph cards).  Mike Trout can still appear on Topps cards after they lose the license - but he'll have to appear wearing a suit or something - however, Trout as long as he is an active player cannot stop Fanatics from issuing Mike Trout MLB cards - and Fanatics cannot issue Mike Trout autograph cards. 

Personally as a collector I believe that the most important license is the license from the players themselves - those are the licenses that allow autograph cards - and ultimately, if the player authorizes it, it's licensed.  The only truly unlicensed cards are the homemade, counterfeit, and fake cards.  

However, the league and players associations are still important because with the league license you can use the logos and with the players association license you can show all of the players who are current members of the players association.

[PhoenixRisen]

While that is the way "licensed" cards are generally understood, it is not really accurate.  It's also not really accurate to say that you need to have a players association license to show current players.

Players are free to license their images to products outside of the player's association license - I don't think the Player's Association can legally (as a matter of federal labor law) prevent their members from entering into outside image licenses or endorsement deals and even if they could legally require such, they would never push the issue because they would be very quickly become decertified as unions if they tried to stop players from entering into their own licensing deals.  However, what having the Player's Association license does is that it prevents players from refusing to participate in the cards.  Lebron James can sign a contract with Upper Deck and appear in Upper Deck products - however, he can't stop Panini from issuing NBA licensed Lebron James cards using the NBAPA license (there are just no James autograph cards).  Mike Trout can still appear on Topps cards after they lose the license - but he'll have to appear wearing a suit or something - however, Trout as long as he is an active player cannot stop Fanatics from issuing Mike Trout MLB cards - and Fanatics cannot issue Mike Trout autograph cards. 

Personally as a collector I believe that the most important license is the license from the players themselves - those are the licenses that allow autograph cards - and ultimately, if the player authorizes it, it's licensed.  The only truly unlicensed cards are the homemade, counterfeit, and fake cards.  

However, the league and players associations are still important because with the league license you can use the logos and with the players association license you can show all of the players who are current members of the players association.

While what you said is correct, it is basically moot as it applies to entire sets of cards, and the reason why we basically ignore it as an issue. Sure, the card company could bypass the player's association license by signing individual contracts with each player. Hopefully it speaks for itself why that is entirely impractical and is so far outside of what a card company would do that it doesn't warrant further discussion. An individual player or two? Sure, it allows them to get them into a set. But for whole products? No way. And the context here is for entire products.

[ZSDOne]

While what you said is correct, it is basically moot as it applies to entire sets of cards, and the reason why we basically ignore it as an issue. Sure, the card company could bypass the player's association license by signing individual contracts with each player. Hopefully it speaks for itself why that is entirely impractical and is so far outside of what a card company would do that it doesn't warrant further discussion. An individual player or two? Sure, it allows them to get them into a set. But for whole products? No way. And the context here is for entire products.

The problem is one of terminology - "unlicensed cards" is a misnomer since the cards obviously must be licensed by somebody.  And it's historically problematic since many historic sets qualify as "unlicensed" in the modern parlance - to cite one really big example, sets made by American Tobacco Co. and predecessor corporations (most notably Allen & Ginter Tobacco Co.) would have been based upon agreements with the individual players rather than the league.

[tate31nym]

Panini - 2011

Good discussion but this is the answer I was looking for, thanks!!