Card Retailers Halt PSA Submissions Amid Buyback Scandal

Is PSA's grading empire crumbling? And why alternatives still fall short.

A growing wave of card shows, dealers and high-profile collectors are suspending submissions to PSA (Professional Sports Authenticator) following explosive allegations of a “grading arbitrage scheme” tied to its buyback program.

The backlash stems from claims that PSA downgraded customer cards, repurchased them at depressed prices, then relisted the same cards under upgraded grades for profit—a practice exposed when a collector spotted discrepancies in PSA’s certification database.

While PSA denies wrongdoing, calling the incident an “isolated grading error,” many dealers have started publicly cut ties, like Score More Points and Three Point, citing eroded trust and “lack of grading consistency.”

This escalating boycott threatens to destabilize the growing $14B+ trading card market, where PSA’s dominance has long been unquestioned. But are these small players boycotts and dealer revolts mere isolated incidents—or the first dominoes in a wider authentication market trust collapse?  

What happened with the PSA buyback scandal?

A recent controversy dubbed the “PSA Buyback Scandal” alleges that the grading company PSA downgraded customer-submitted cards (e.g., 30 identical cards graded PSA 9), repurchased them at lower prices, then relisted the same cert numbers as higher-value PSA 10s. After a collector exposed the discrepancy on social media, PSA claimed it was a “one-off grading error” and returned the upgraded cards, but skepticism persists.

Critics argue the incident highlights a conflict of interest, as PSA profits from both grading fees and secondary market sales, eroding trust in its impartiality. The scandal has sparked debates about transparency and ethical practices in the collectibles industry.

What are collectors concerns with PSA?

Collectors are increasingly frustrated with PSA’s perceived conflicts of interest and service shortcomings, citing a system that prioritizes profit over fairness.

At the heart of the backlash is PSA’s upcharging policy, where the company retroactively increases grading fees if a card’s post-grade value exceeds the original service tier—a practice critics argue incentivizes inflated grades to justify higher charges.

Further eroding trust is PSA’s dual role as market arbiter and participant: its dominant market share allows its grades to dictate card values, yet its involvement in auctions and buyback programs raises suspicions of manipulation to benefit its own ventures or institutional partners.

Compounding these issues are opaque grading standards, with no detailed explanations for grades, leaving collectors to wonder if flaws like “centering” or “surface issues” are genuine or subjective. Service complaints amplify frustrations: inconsistent grades on resubmitted cards make the process feel like a lottery, months-long delays contradict advertised turnaround times, and poor customer service—from unaccountable damage claims to punitive policies over minor imperfections—paints PSA as indifferent to everyday collectors.

Together, these issues fuel a growing belief that the grading giant prioritizes profit and market control over transparency, consistency, and collector trust.

PSA Launches Hong Kong Submission Center to Serve Asia-Pacific

Why is PSA Hong Kong a game-changer for Asia-Pacific collectors?

Read More >>

Can card shows and dealers exiting PSA collaborations hurt the grading giant?

The simple answer: no—or at least, not yet. Two factors protect PSA’s dominance: 1) Its partnerships with platforms like eBay and Gamestop allow it to control the sales cycle without relying on small third parties to generate volume, and 2) PSA-graded cards still command the highest market premiums. A third, more cynical reality is that recent record sales—many inflated by investor speculation—prop up PSA’s relevance despite growing backlash.

That said, if scandals and community distrust persist, a gradual shift toward alternatives like CGC could emerge. However, CGC’s own credibility is shaky after high-profile failures (e.g., slabbed fake Pokémon playtest cards). Other competitors face even steeper hurdles: Beckett lacks operational scale, SGC is floundering post-leadership exodus (like CEO Peter Steinberg’s departure amid Collectors’ corporate reshuffling), and innovators like TAG—which uses computer-based transparency—remain too niche to disrupt the market, does not have that global recognition and footprint yet, aside from drastically increasing their offers (from $12 in May 2024, to $20 for Bulk).

All these graders falter under pressure—whether due to corporate arrogance, inconsistent policies, or outright radio silence—when controversies arise. They truly suck at it.

The bottom line:

The grading industry is nearing a cultural breaking point. Collectors are increasingly disillusioned with cheap acrylic slabs and opaque practices, and demand for alternatives that prioritize dignity, transparency, and innovation will only grow.

Stay ahead of the curve—visit our Behind The Cards section for unflinching transparency, deep dives into grading controversies, and the unfiltered truth shaping the future of collectibles.