I think you would be correct if the drug companies were funding it all themselves. AstraZeneca got more than a billion dollars in aid from the U.S. government to develop their vaccine. Other companies received huge amounts as well.
Pfizer being a major exception - they didn't take any money for development, only pre-orders for production.
That they took government money does not mean they didn't also heavily invest their own resources - so we shouldn't speak as if this meant it was free for the biotech firms in question.
Government funding isn't new, or specific to this vaccine. Governments put investment into all sorts of technology development, all the time. It is a regular part of doing business in technology development. These funds are handed out with agreement on who owns the IP attached. So, these companies took the money and engaged in work with expectations about the future results, and is part of the balance sheets that drive their choices.
There's a Vaderesque, "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further," to this.
I don't think they will collapse. They'll go to their limit, though, and then the smaller producers who can't pay to have their product moved will fail. The bigger companies will get their product out and the rest won't.
So, let me be clear what I mean by "collapse". If seven companies try to draw on supplies for three different components that aren't up to it, you are likely to have the issue that none of the companies get all of what they need for all the components. Company 1 gets all of component A they need, but B gets poached by company 2, and so on. This means that all the companies become highly inefficient at production. High levels of production requires planned, balanced sourcing and consumption of elements.