How FIFA was outplayed by Electronic Arts
economist.comNo paywall: https://archive.ph/eeRQZ
It didn't take much for this to have been a success.
FIFA wanted $150 million per year. That's on top of all the money EA has to spend licensing with all the various clubs which gives them access to their brands, players, etc.
It was money exclusively going to FIFA for the name FIFA, and with it a whole host of restrictions as the article mentions, but also some suspect some that the article doesn't mention.
The only anxiety here is that this is EA's biggest cash cow. It brings in literal billions in revenue. It's their consistent money maker that gets them through dry economic seasons and lets them front cash on more experimental titles.
Ultimately all they had to do to succeed was bring in the same revenue as last year - $150 million and it's a success financial, but instead they threw the money they would have thrown at FIFA towards marketing and got a bigger bang for their buck.
The article mentions single digit revenue increases; that may seem small, until we remember that 5% of 2 billion USD is $100m.
What licensing rights was EA paying FIFA for exactly? FIFA just owns Worldcup brand, correct? so EA has to make deals with top leagues like EPL/La liga to use player/team logos etc?
EA still had to make deals with each club individually to use their brand and likeness.
This deal was to use World Cup and to call their game "FIFA" as in "FIFA 23".
> Will fifa hit back? In May Gianni Infantino, its boss, said it was working on a rival game that “obviously, as everything we do, will be the best”.
Always be wary of claims like this.
Alternative title: How FIFA outgreeded itself