Popularity of baseball cards vs football cards

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

SymphonicMetal

Veteran
154
5.00 star(s)
Joined
Feb 7, 2015
Messages
2,498
Location
New York
I was wondering why you guys think there is such a great difference in popularity of baseball cards and football cards. I understand there is a certain tradition with baseball cards but football seems to be so much more popular than baseball and has been for several decades. Throw in the fact that football has a recognizable feeder system in college football while baseball's feeder system is the minor leagues where only the hardest core fans follow. But for some reason football cards lag way behind baseball in popularity.

I've always been evenly divided on how much I like vintage baseball, football and basketball.. As a matter of fact I slightly lean towards football and basketball when it comes to vintage and heavily prefer football and basketball over baseball when it comes to cards from 1990 to present.

Just wondering why you think there is such a difference in popularity when it comes to cards for these two sports. This matter has mystified me for decades!
 
You are getting at it when you mention that vintage baseball cards bolstered a popularity in it's heyday when the sport of baseball was America's national pastime. The heroes of the day were probably no more talented than the superstars of today, but the audience has changed. Because so much of life is fast tracked, we have an audience that doesn't have the attention span that early Americans had because there was simply less. Football and basketball, and hockey for that matter, are faster paced and keep the attention of the modern sports fan more attentively. That is why football's popularity has bounded past the nine innings, or more, that make up baseball.
I think modern card collectors still share that sentimentality, of a rich past, when they collect baseball cards which makes up part of it's popularity. However, as the game of football continues to be popular, I dare say all that could change in the future and football cards could overtake baseball in having more esteem.
 
Last edited:
Rooster, Funny you mention the attention span of the modern day sports fan because many years ago I fit that description. While I am very nostalgic about baseball of the 1960s and 1970s, I was the "new breed" of fan that loved the AFL and the ABA because of their flash and dash. So I went from cutting edge and revolutionary sports fan to "Get off my lawn" sports fan! LOL

Besides preferring basketball and football as a youthful fan, I found those two sports were the path of least resistance when it came to card collecting. I'd go to a show and a 1960s Topps Mickey Mantle would be hundreds of dollars and a Jim Brown or Johnny Unitas would be $5 or $10. So just as a financial matter I'd tend to go to the football and basketball cards.

I do think with sports cards becoming more and more of an adult hobby, the nostalgia factor definitely favors baseball. There just don't seem to be many younger card collectors these days which works against football and basketball cards.
 
My collection is probably 98% baseball. Used to collect hockey and a little football, but just lost interest in those. Strangely enough, my younger son's collection is primarily football, although he does pick up some baseball from time to time (including the occasional Ripken auto for the old man!).
 
Ha ha, Dan, got the plug in there for Ripken! To illustrate a very personal account, I got a phone call from my folks who were leaving the Bay Area and retiring to a more affordable setting. They wanted me to come get my cards that I had storing in their garage. I had boxes of '70s baseball and boxes of '70s football cards. Back then I was freshly out of college and just getting by, because of storage issues, I had room for only one sport.
Sadly, I left the boxes of vintage football on the street curb and walked away. I think about that from time to time... the OJ Simpson RC, cards of Bart Starr, Kenny Stabler & George Blanda, Roman Gabriel & Jim Plunkett RCs, Gale Sayers & Dick Butkus, Jim Brown, man... sometimes it makes me want to have a good long cry!
 
Last edited:
Rooster, Funny you mention the attention span of the modern day sports fan because many years ago I fit that description. While I am very nostalgic about baseball of the 1960s and 1970s, I was the "new breed" of fan that loved the AFL and the ABA because of their flash and dash. So I went from cutting edge and revolutionary sports fan to "Get off my lawn" sports fan! LOL

Besides preferring basketball and football as a youthful fan, I found those two sports were the path of least resistance when it came to card collecting. I'd go to a show and a 1960s Topps Mickey Mantle would be hundreds of dollars and a Jim Brown or Johnny Unitas would be $5 or $10. So just as a financial matter I'd tend to go to the football and basketball cards.

I do think with sports cards becoming more and more of an adult hobby, the nostalgia factor definitely favors baseball. There just don't seem to be many younger card collectors these days which works against football and basketball cards.

Exactly right Jeff, and i feel like our local shows in STL are absurdly expensive all around...it has gotten to be more of an adult hobby though, the nostalgia factor is definitely very high!

Blessings,

Kevin
 
I think you nailed it in your second sentence - the tradition of baseball cards v. the other two sports. I never played football as a kid, so that is probably a major reason I never collected the cards seriously. Do I have some, yes, but not very many. I played basketball through college, but never seemed to dive into collecting the cards.

Baseball......I can remember watching all star games and world series (was a young kid in pittsburgh in the early 70's) in my youth. I can remember moving to philadelphia when I was 6, and it was all about Mike Schmidt, Larry Bowa, Steve Carlton, Garry Maddox, Greg Luzinski, etc. etc. etc. And I can remember going to The Vet and sitting in the 700 level and cheering against every team that came to play the beloved Phillies. Especially the Dodgers and Reds -- Cey..Russell...Garvey...Bench...Rose...Morgan..Concepcion. And I wanted cards of all of them..even the guys on teams I didn't like.

And than the capper was the backs of 1978 cards had the game portion, where each card had an outcome and you could play a 9 inning game with your cards. And we always made it interesting by putting a card up as a wager, win the game, win your friends card. Lose, and that Bake McBride card you loved was no longer in your collection. Even at 9 years old, I was a degenerate gambler..... It would also explain why my 1978 cards were the most beat up and needed the most upgrades.

Just feels like baseball is the more "romanticized" sport, especially in terms of cards.
 
I think the fact that I did not grow up near a big city skews my interest more towards football and basketball which tend to be more nationally oriented vs baseball which is more local/regional. To me baseball is more of a radio sport as so many radio announcers are legends for the home team fans. For me Ernie Harwell for the Tigers was a big deal when family vacationed in Michigan. But growing up in the sticks baseball was pretty much "The Game of the Week" on Saturdays, The All Star Game, World Series and the League Leaders and box scores in the newspaper. It was not until my teens when the Mets and Yankees TV broadcasts came to upstate NY so I don't have a local tie to MLB as so many others do.

I do agree about the MLB All Star game being "Must see TV" in the 1970s and early 1980s. It seemed Rod Carew started every year for the AL for an eternity First he was the starting 2B from the Twins and later he was the starting 1B from the Angels. He was always there.

Football was always national so it did not matter where you lived you could follow the sport just as well as someone from the metro areas. You'd get games on TV from every part of the country not just regional tams. While I am nostalgic about baseball from my childhood, I am absolutely obsessed with football from the 1960s and 1970s, To illustrate my obsession with football from that era I just traded for a certified autograph of Fred "The Hammer" Williamson who may not have been a HOF player but was a HOF Personality. I was beyond thrilled to get that card since The Hammer was one of my earliest football memories. There were a lot more famous autos and GU on this guy's trade list but I HAD to have that Williamson autograph!

One thing that should help the popularity of football and basketball cards is their drafts. We all watch the feeder systems for both sports so we know the big names that will be rookies for the upcoming year. Zion Williamson and Joe Burrow are household names so you'd think those sports cards would be more in demand. But no one knows who the big names are in the MLB drafts since there is no equivalent feeder system that we can watch for that sport and still baseball cards rule supreme.
 
Last edited:
Harry Kalas was the voice of my youth. Somewhere on this site, someone mentioned a Phillies/Cubs game that ended up 23-22, I remember that game because our art teacher took us outside for class that afternoon and we got to listen to the game on the radio. If there was a day game, we were listening to it at school somehow. And the radio in my room (no TV for me) was always tuned to a Phillies broadcast and that is what I fell asleep to (usually after the postgame show). After Philly, I moved to Detroit, and I got Harwell for a couple seasons.

I agree that baseball is definitely more regional. Football was always on Sunday afternoon and Monday night, back in the day. Basketball might have one game a week televised. So playing baseball and than having access to it 5 or 6 days a week, definitely more influential in my world. And the NBA was still tape delaying the finals into the early 80's.

It is just recently that basketball cards have gone nuts, especially Zion-mania. But even as recently as Giannis RC's, no one snatched them up after the draft. And football is so hit or miss with even the best prospects. What both those sports have going for them is televised draft coverage. That builds super hype for players. And baseball still has bowman -- as hdjstuff always says in his reviews, buy it, bust it, stash it in a closet for 5 years, pull it out and see what you have! And even saying that - Acuna and Judge and Soto and Eloy and Tatis and Vlad Jr. have been driving the needle up for baseball cards for the last 2 or 3 years. Just look at the prices for 2018 and 2019 Update...crazy!! Even more so for Update Chrome.

I love this discussion - hope it gains some traction and lots more members provide their input!!!
 
Is Bowman the only issue that has actual rookie cards for baseball these days? I know obscure RCs were their specialty as far back as the early 1990s. To me one of the negatives with baseball cards is what was the actual RC of any given player with all the Update and offshoot sets.

Not being able to identify the current RC prospects in any given year was always a huge negative for baseball cards vs the other 2 sports for me.
 
That has long been a topic of debate, Jeff, dating back to the Babe and before! There is a whole large room at Cooperstown dedicated to baseball cards over the years, and the "true" RCs are in question! There is a first issue Babe Ruth card there, considered to be his actual rookie card as it were, though that distinction seems to have gained more importance in our era....honestly, there are some pretty rough RCs out there Mariano Rivera is the first who comes to mind!

God bless,

Kevin
 
With the cost of cards.......you normally had to chose the sport you were going to collect.....remember when we had Topps, Pinnacle, UpperDeck, Donruss, Fleer and Leaf....so many companies going after your money.....I chose baseball cards. Your parent had to be rich or you had a full or part time job.... in order for you to be in more than one sports....collecting wise.. Best regards, David
 
Last edited:
David, that is very true, it was never the cheapest hobby, though even adjusting for inflation, cards are far more expensive now than ever, and packs seem smaller now too.

Blessings,

Kevin
 
it was never the cheapest hobby, though even adjusting for inflation, cards are far more expensive now than ever, and packs seem smaller now too.

Blessings,

Kevin

And to add to that, baseball cards as an investment have not kept up with appreciation over time. It has only been recently that '60s cards of the stars have received a bump in book value....
 
David, that is very true, it was never the cheapest hobby, though even adjusting for inflation, cards are far more expensive now than ever, and packs seem smaller now too.

But wait! I refer to card collecting as my inexpensive hobby!! I cannot be wrong! LOL I have not bought a pack or a box since 1992!! It is MUCH more cost effective to buy collections from people. I thought the hobby was expensive in 1992 so I am floored at the prices I see for the new products. Honestly I just don't see how collectors are paying those prices for a hobby that is dying and in a total buyer's market. There are many, many sellers and very few buyers so why these retail prices on packs and boxes are what they are, I'll never know.

And this does tie in with my earlier take about the path of least resistance. Football was always much cheaper than baseball so you could get a lot more bang for your buck going with football and basketball. I'd go to a show and see a 1960s Topps Mantle for $300-$500 or I could buy a Walter Payton Rookie for $20. Your could buy a 1984 Topps baseball box for $40 or a 1984 Topps Football box for $5. Not hard to guess what way I would go at those shows/LCss.
 
Last edited:
Jeff and Rooster,

I agree with both of you about it being a buyer's market, but baseball has sure got some pie in the sky prices, my gosh.

A Payton rookie for 20 bucks is a great price, beats the heck out of anything baseball has to offer! The cards have not drastically increased in their value, as Rooster said, though prices are still crazy high! Griffey, Harper, Ripken, etc.

I do enjoy finding a good purchase here and there, and like Jeff's Hammer, I look for players I liked, not based on popularity!

Blessings,

Kevin
 
And to add to that, baseball cards as an investment have not kept up with appreciation over time. It has only been recently that '60s cards of the stars have received a bump in book value....

Shhhh..... Vintage staying cheap is not a bad thing!! Everyone can rush out after Vlad etc. I want to try and scoop up as much vintage as possible to finish up my sets, at the lowest cost possible!
 
I prefer baseball cards because many players have 15-20 year careers. I followed Jim Thome from the minors to the Hall of Fame. In baseball, the season has many, many more games. More chances to see your favorite players. Longer seasons also means more product. Longer, richer history plays a part too I think. Baseball has more players to prospect on too. A late rounder 60th round or some craziness (Mike Piazza) can make the hall of fame. A late rounder in football is 6th or 7th round. And basketball, seems you have to be a lottery pick to even get any attention at all. I know there are exceptions but overall IMO baseball has better prospect sets and better memorabilia.
 
The football card hobby is driven almost solely by one position - the quarterback. You can look at cards for great RBs, WRs, etc. and they are ridiculously cheap even for HOFers. At the same time nice cards of rookie QBs sell for tons more. Just the way it is sadly. Longevity is huge for football though. Injuries derail careers and the average career length of an NFL player is far less.

This is not true in basketball or baseball since one position isn't so heavily weighted and the players that are good typically have longer careers therefore increasing the value over time.
 
The football card hobby is driven almost solely by one position - the quarterback. You can look at cards for great RBs, WRs, etc. and they are ridiculously cheap even for HOFers. At the same time nice cards of rookie QBs sell for tons more. Just the way it is sadly. Longevity is huge for football though. Injuries derail careers and the average career length of an NFL player is far less.

This is not true in basketball or baseball since one position isn't so heavily weighted and the players that are good typically have longer careers therefore increasing the value over time.

That is a great point about the QB centric aspect of football cards. It has cetainly been that way since the turn of the century or even more specifically when Manning and Leaf were drafted in 1998. Prior to that it was about 50/50 for the biggest cards being QBs vs non QBs. About half the time the big rc for any year's sets were RBs, WRs and even defensive players like in 1982 and 1966. As recently as the 1990s franchise running backs were often the marquee cards like with Barry and Emmitt. But no longer.

I'm really wondering if baseball's inability to get its act together and play this season is going to hurt the popularity of that sport's cards? It might not because card collectors tend to be older males who are very nostalgic about baseball. I don't know too many younger collectors these days so I'm not sure about the long term health of the entire sportscard hobby, not just baseball cards..

And you are correct about the cheap HOF rookie cards in football! Those cards are the best buys in the hobby if you are buying single cards these days. Some of the values on hof rookies are so low, itis shameful.
 
Last edited:
Top