Owen Grahling 12/9/25 Owen Grahling 12/9/25

Pokémon Cards: a Hobby or an Investment?

Within the past few years, the Pokémon card market has undergone a remarkable resurgence, interest soaring in everything from individual cards to sealed products. Rod Crochiere, the owner of Pokémon Trainer Universe, a card shop in Franklin, Massachusetts, tells consumers, "[At] The beginning of the pandemic, the cards were pretty much at their lowest, and at the end of the pandemic, they were at the highest they'd ever been" (Sullivan 2025). While this seems exciting for collectors who have already invested in the hobby, incoming investors enter the market with more capital. They end up buying out stock, preventing new and average collectors from participating. Large-scale investors' use of strategies such as botting, buyouts, population control, and outbidding on low-population cards has caused the market to go from being a popular hobby for new and nostalgic collectors to being a no-rules market dominated by big investors.

The results of the sudden boom in the Pokémon card market are most apparent in retail stores across the country. Retailers that once had the popular trading cards on shelves have gone out of business due to scalpers lining up for hours on end to buy out stores within seconds of opening on restock dates. Scalpers then resell the same products for double their retail price, forcing collectors to either pay absurd prices or leave the hobby. Online distribution channels reveal a similar pattern: scalpers employ automated bots to purchase entire inventories before real customers even have the chance to access the site. Ultimately, scalpers have come to dominate nearly every Pokémon distribution channel—inflating prices not only for the sealed products they resell, but also for the rare cards contained within them. This drives up prices for individual cards, putting the hobby of collecting Pokémon cards behind a much steeper paywall. Cards from packs ranging from four to five dollars each are now worth thousands of dollars, which causes the cards to be resold for as much as hundreds of dollars each. With these price hikes, both new and experienced collectors are left struggling to enjoy the hobby that big investors only see as an asset.

Another result of the Pokémon card boom is the sharp increase in the popularity of card grading, which entails evaluating the quality of the card based on the quality of the surface, corners, edges, and centering, and then displaying the card’s grade in a plastic case. Three main companies, PSA, Beckett, and CGC, are the most popular choices for card grading, with PSA being the most popular. Regardless of the grading company, graded cards fetch higher prices than ungraded cards, giving investors a better chance to profit from their collections.

The surge in grading popularity since COVID is reshaping the hobby—and not in a way most collectors appreciate. As high-grade labels become the standard, the Pokémon market tilts toward investment culture, with some PSA grade 10s now selling for tens of thousands of dollars and a handful clearing the hundred-thousand mark. This pricing turns the hobby into something closer to an unregulated stock market, effectively pushing out collectors who just want to build a set without treating every card like a financial instrument. Luke Hopewell of SwitzerDaily captures the scale of the shift, noting that “since 2004, the value of Pokémon cards on the resale market has climbed more than 3,800 percent…. Over the same period, the S&P 500 gained about 483 percent” (Hopewell 2025). Numbers like that pull investors away from more traditional assets and into the world of collectibles, and the grading system only accelerates the trend. In the process, the nostalgic attachment that many collectors once had for Pokémon cards is increasingly overshadowed by a money-first mindset among newer market participants.

Because this new “stock market” is still considered a hobby, there is a troubling lack of regulations. As a result, because new participants focus on money instead of collecting, investors with more capital have been doing “buyouts”, which is when someone buys every single copy of a card listed online on major card-buying sites such as TCGPlayer and eBay, resulting in an extremely sharp increase in both the price and the popularity of the card. The buyer then sells their massive stock of cards at an increased price, resulting in easy profits that incentivize others to do the same. The increased rate of buyouts among investors with enough capital to purchase all the inventory essentially puts them in control of the market. Notably, this mainly happens to newer cards, as the majority of vintage cards (cards from 1999 to around 2003) graded in PSA’s highest grade are owned by a small group of collectors. These vintage collectors contribute to scarcity in the market by holding many of the last remaining sealed products that contain those same cards. They hold these sealed products partly because the products are expected to appreciate in value, but more importantly, to prevent anyone else from possibly pulling and grading one of the cards that the vintage investor has already graded. Deep-pocketed investors of this caliber sometimes go to extreme lengths, with some purposefully damaging expensive products to ensure that the population of their graded cards stays low in what is called “population control.” In other instances, grading companies such as PSA intentionally grade cards lower to preserve the low population of certain cards in a perfect grade, increasing their value. Some speculate that PSA does this for profit, as price spikes allow them to upcharge newly submitted copies upon granting them high grades (PSA charges a percentage of the market price of certain cards if they grade a high enough grade). Thus, in recent years, the Pokémon card market has become increasingly tainted by corruption and manipulation, creating an unsustainable environment that has driven away many of the dedicated collectors who once fueled the hobby.

While it’s clear that the recent transformations of the Pokémon card hobby have changed the demographic of participants from nostalgia-seeking collectors to money-hungry investors, one might be tempted to ask the question, “Why does it matter?” The main problem with this transformation is that it is not sustainable. Prior to the market boom, children and adult collectors kept the Pokémon hobby alive, enough for Pokémon to continue creating new sets of cards. Today, this audience has been pushed out, and the corruption and market manipulation brought by the new investors point towards a crash. Hopewell (2025) notes that in a discussion with an unofficial analyst of the Pokémon card market, the analyst said, “When price growth jumps suddenly, especially for certain types of cards, it’s usually a warning sign…. There will be intense market corrections soon.” With these corrections, likely a market crash, investors are likely to liquidate their assets and leave the hobby, prompting the question of whether or not old collectors who have been pushed out of the market will return to revive the hobby and bring in new collectors again. With investors possibly holding some of their cards in hopes of the market recovering in the future, the revival of the old community will certainly not be easy, as a solid chunk of existing cards will be removed from circulation. Despite the bleak current situation, the Pokémon card influencer community is showing signs of increased collector interest, with many big names gaining traction from generous acts like giving out free cards and packs. These growing fanbases of Pokémon content creators give hope for the hobby to recover. Ultimately, the fate of the hobby of collecting Pokémon cards relies on both the outcomes of investments and the commitment of its collectors to sustain it.

References

Hopewell, Luke. “How Pokémon Cards Became a Market-Beating Investment, and Why a Bubble Is Now Brewing.” Switzer, 1 Oct. 2025, switzer.com.au/the-experts/luke-hopewell/how-pokemon-cards-became-a-market-beating-investment-and-why-a-bubble-is-now-brewing/.

Sullivan, Mike. “Pokémon Cards as an Investment? Once a Hobby for Kids, It’s Now a Big-Time Business.” CBS News, 12 Sept. 2025, www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/pokemon-card-value-investment/.

“Gen Z Men Are Obsessed with Pokémon Cards — They’re Using ‘Boy Math’ to Argue That They’ll Beat Nvidia Stock and the S&P 500.” Fortune, 12 July 2025, fortune.com/2025/07/12/gen-z-millenial-men-addicted-to-pokemon-sports-trading-cards-outbeat-sp-500-resell-ebay-investment-move/.

Joseph Kwon 12/9/25 Joseph Kwon 12/9/25

Economic Impact of NBA Super Max Contracts

Over the past decade, news of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of contracts have stolen the spotlight on headlines. Following the 2025 NBA championship win by Oklahoma City Thunder, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Canadian superstar & point guard for OKC, signed a contract of $285 million for 4 years. Similarly, in 2024, after the Boston Celtics took down the Dallas Mavericks, star player Jayson Tatum signed the biggest NBA contract in history for $313 million for 5 years. Steph Curry, Jokic, Giannis, Joel Embiid, and Jaylen Brown - all of these incredible stars are on “Supermax Contracts,” making unimaginable amounts of money after reaching a certain threshold of achievement and years of performance. However, when a franchise spends a substantial amount of its salary cap - a limit each team has to spend on its roster - on one star, it is interesting to understand the effects on the rest of the economy, such as other roster spots, the average fan experience, and future trades/recruitment.

To take a deep dive into what these supermax deals actually mean, A Supermax contract, also known as “Designated Veteran Player Extension (DVPE)” was introduced to the league in 2017 as a tool for medium-sized franchise teams to keep homegrown players. To be eligible for this opportunity, a player must have either made the All-NBA Team or won the Defensive Player of the Year. They also have to be entering their 8th or 9th year in the league and have been drafted by the team or traded to it while still on their rookie deal. A non-eligible player can earn 30% of the salary cap with 5% yearly raises. However, if eligible, a team can offer the player 35% of the league’s salary cap with annual raises - more than any other team is allowed to offer.

On the surface, this sounds like a suitable solution for retaining huge talent. Teams like Milwaukee, Denver, and Oklahoma City don’t have the appeal of Los Angeles or Miami when it comes to attracting free agents, so the supermax gives them a financial advantage to keep their stars. Giannis stayed. Jokic stayed. Shai stayed. The argument here is simple: If the league wants balance, it has to give smaller markets tools to keep their talent, and the supermax does exactly this - allowing smaller teams the ability to retain top talent by giving them the financial arsenal that no other NBA team is allowed to provide.

But that’s only part of the story. While teams are locking down their stars, they’re also locking themselves into long-term financial pressure. If one player is earning $50 or $60 million per year, that means over a third of the team's total payroll is utilized. The rest of the roster has to be built with far less financial flexibility. Teams in this situation can’t afford to miss draft picks or overpay role players, because every mistake gets magnified. The Boston Celtics, for example, have both Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown on supermax contracts. In 2025, their combined salaries are pushing the team into the league’s second tax apron, which comes with penalties that limit trades and signings. This ultimately forces teams into win-now mode, whether they’re ready or not.

It is also important to underline the unintended consequences for the rest of the league. When a star gets a supermax, it resets the entire salary market. Role players who aren’t eligible to be all-stars due to their performance, expect salaries in the $20 to $30 million dollar range because that’s the average price in a league where the best players make $60 million. This makes it harder for role players to find an appropriate contract or team, and it inflates expectations on players’ values. Not every player who makes All-NBA is a generational cornerstone, but supermax rules evoke this idea. That puts pressure on franchises to offer inflated contracts that they may later regret. For example, John Wall and Bradley Beal, two very big prospects for the Washington Wizards that ended up hurting the Wizards’ flexibility. It’s a high-stakes and risky decision - once the contract is signed, there is no turning back.

It is interesting to look at the Supermax contract solutions from the fans’ perspective. A star signing a long-term deal can be an emotional rollercoaster for fans - it might lead to a thrilling championship run, or just as easily be derailed by injury or a sudden trade request that crushes any hope for success. James Harden, currently a PG for the LA Clippers, signed a supermax contract in 2017 that locked in a deal through the 2023 season, but then forced a trade in 2021. Damian Lillard remained committed to Portland for years, signing a four-year, $196 million super-max extension to stay with the franchise, but ultimately requested a move when the team could no longer contend at a high level. The supermax might keep players from shifting towards free agency, but it doesn’t guarantee long-term loyalty. Fans buy jerseys, become emotionally invested in their teams, and get sold on the “face of the franchise” only to see that star move the moment things go south. The intention was to stop the formation of superteams and constant movement - but ironically, these contracts can delay the inevitable while tying a team’s hands.

Of course, there are valid counterpoints. One argument is that every contract comes with risk, and supermaxes are just part of doing business in a growing league. As revenues increase, so do player salaries. Some would argue that stars deserve their high salaries - they’re the reason arenas sell out, fans tune in, and billions of dollars in merchandise are sold globally. Why shouldn’t a player like Nikola Jokic or Giannis Antetokounmpo be paid 35% of the cap when they’re producing MVP seasons and carrying their teams to championships? The NBA is star-driven, and without elite players, most franchises can’t survive. Some people may even say that super max deals are not paying the most valuable players enough, given how much they generate for the league.

However, it is still the case that not every supermax deal ends in a parade. For every Nikola Jokic or Steph Curry who delivers titles on their contract, there are examples where teams get stuck: not bad enough to rebuild, not good enough to contend. The NBA ends up with a few dominant teams and a middle tier of franchises that are not able to break through. That's not a problem the supermax fixed - it might’ve made it worse.

In conclusion, supermax contracts have reshaped the finances of the NBA. They’ve given teams in smaller markets a fighting chance to retain their stars and build around them, and in the best cases, they’ve helped deliver championships. But they’ve also created new financial challenges, warped the salary market, and raised questions about player movement and team-building. The thesis here is simple: The supermax is a tool - it’s not good or bad in itself, but how it's used determines whether it is beneficial or harmful to a team’s long-term future. NBA franchises must be smarter, not just richer, and fans must adjust their expectations for what “loyalty” and “value” look like in the modern league's economy. As contracts get more expensive, the margin for error gets smaller - and everyone, from General Managers and fans to the players themselves, has to play the financial game just as carefully as the game on the court.

Works Cited:

Baucom, Sheri. “Using Data Integration and Advanced Modeling to Determine Active External Corrosion.” Supermax Contract NBA Explained: How It Impacts Teams and Player Careers - French League 1 Live - France Ligue 1 Matches Today, Irth Solutions, 8 Sept. 2025,www.franceligue1matchestoday.com/french-league-1-live/supermax-contract-nba-explained-how-it-impacts-teams-and-player-careers-650081.html. Accessed 13 Nov. 2025.

“Sources: Celtics’ Jayson Tatum Agrees to 5-Year, $314M Deal - ESPN.” ESPN.com, ESPN, July 2024, www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/40476501/sources-celtics-jayson-tatum-agrees-5-year-314m-extension#. Accessed 13 Nov. 2025.

From. “Shai Gilgeous-Alexander Signs Reported 4-Year, $285 Million Extension with Thunder.” NBA, NBA.com, July 2025, www.nba.com/news/shai-gilgeous-alexander-contract-extension-2025#. Accessed 13 Nov. 2025.

Lowe, Zach. “The NBA Supermax and the Price of Loyalty - ESPN.” ESPN.com, ESPN, 27 July 2018, www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/24191536/zach-lowe-jimmy-butler-blake-griffin-nba-supermax#. Accessed 13 Nov. 2025.