Ask for an extra half billion dollars, end up with nothing. Quite a fable. I can't imagine there will be many queueing up to take on the license after EA (certainly not at those rates). The only competent player in that area were Konami, and they are in a nosedive into F2P disasters.
Sounds like some of the falling out was each side not wanting to cede the rights to capitalise off stuff like NFTs, which is hilarious.
I think what Konami did with PES was really smart: they created fictional clubs and leagues with hints about what they should be in real life and let everything be customizable. As expected, gamers already have shared databases with updated info about current leagues and clubs, saving Konami from paying any licence at all AFAIK
Not entirely, they have bought exclusive licenses for some clubs like Juventus and Manchester United, which has resulted in said clubs being renamed in other football-relates games like ~FIFA~ EA Sports FC and Football Manager. Juventus is either Piemonte Calcio or Zebre, keeps the same colours and players, and is pretty obvious what it is
For FIFA to ask for a $1bn over 4 years based on EA's revenue of nearly $6bn from FIFA and Ultimate Team in the same period (assuming zero growth) doesn't seem that greedy to me.
Sorry if you already know this, but it's literally just the name on the box, not licensing for leagues, player names etc. I see basically no value in that name, it may even be a negative given their poor reputation (corruption etc).
Well, it's my perception that this was a nice little earner for FIFA in that EA did all the work whilst they got a massive pay off. They are obviously thinking about taking up their own financial opportunities more, and that's presumably why they bumped up their valuation. Time will tell on that front, but I think it's a massive error. FIFA don't have the competentcy.
EA are no saints either, of course. FIFA the game has morphed into a microtransaction nightmare. But I think they will still get their $6bn with or without FIFA on the box, Ultimate Team is the brand now. The only thing derailing that train is legislation (increasingly likely given how it targets children)
Do you really think that asking a $1B cut from $6B revenue is OK? That's a cut of 17% for what? For licensing a name? As a gamer I'd rather save $10 on the price and have it named something else. We already have to put up with the clubs names BS anyway... because they don't have the licenses for using the real team names in the game.
At the end of the day FIFA the game makes a lot of money and EA could easily afford that extra half billion. They chose not to pay because they are greedy themselves. It's just business.
Somebody else will probably still end up paying for that valuable license, since most of the value of these games is in the name. A lot of console player only buy 2 titles a year: Call Of Duty and FIFA.
What do EA get out of the deal though? Made sense when they were launching the series back in the days the Sega Megadrive, now it's just an incredibly expensive albatross round their neck. FIFA are so corrupt the association is negative. Why would you pay for that? In a saner world FIFA would be paying EA for sponsorship to launder their image!
I think people will generally buy the game that has the real teams and players.
I believe the falling through of this FIFA deal does not (severely) impact that as EA has agreements with all governing bodies separately (Premier League, Bundesliga etc.)
I am not sure if they can now still have the national teams?
And bear in mind this deal doesn't even include player and club likeness and naming rights! May have been rhetoric from EA but it really does seem there is some truth to their assertion that FIFA was just 'four letters on front of the box'.
Just give it a little time: "Camp Nou will be rebranded as Spotify Camp Nou" [1]. But, I agree, I was also a little confused when reading the title at first.
It wouldn't matter, because EA Sports still has the licenses for teams and players. Those rights are provided by UEFA and national football associations.
Only thing EA really loses out on is official licensing for World Cup-related games.
Can the title be amended to "FIFA (video game series) will be rebranded as EA Sports FC in 2023" to clarify that it's not referring to the actual football governing body?
Sorry, I'm not able to change it any longer. Maybe that'd be something @dang could do.
I don't know whether we have a policy about that, but I thought I should keep the title as the heading of the article. Sorry for the confusion about that.
It's like if the devil and the antichrist split up. Yeah it's probably a good thing, but it's really hard to be happy about it. Even EA's way of selling it is "don't worry, we'll still charge you yearly for the same features including the money sucking ultimate team."
totally agree. Some perspective is needed here. EA is just a shit company with their gambling mechanics and more. FIFA is corrupt and straight up doesn't care about human rights - on Katar construction sites for example. They're playing in a different league.
> IMO the entire leadership of FIFA belongs behind bars.
I don't really follow anything about FIFA the org/leadership. Why do they belong behind bars? I have seen quite a few examples of them being super greedy but I am ignorant past that.
Nah, just in the context of that website. It’s not BBC or NY Times. Plus it’s properly italicized there. On HN it’s out of context and could use clarification despite HN’s no editing headlines by default policy.
Even in the context of HN, a) we're more likely to be talking about video games than real-life sport b) it's a fairly safe assumption that an international governing body is less likely to rebrand in this way than a video game series.
I disagree personally. As a "young" male from Europe every time I've talked about FIFA with friends we were talking about the game (although we always liked PES more as teenagers as it felt more arcade-like...)
The video gaming series isn't not more widely known than the governing body otherwise EA wouldn't have paid half a billion dollars year for year just for the naming rights.
I don't know, weirdly I was today years old when I realised that FIFA [the game] was named after the football governing body. Might just be a me thing.
FIFA is the football videogame brand. Not using that name is a huge marketing change. (Like I know EA own other sports games, know their brand id and slogan, but honestly thought 'FIFA' was it's own company.)
What interests me is what would happen if FIFA the governing body try to lease their trademark to another football videogame maker -- that would be some serious market confusion, but could EA do anything about it legally? Any precedents?
I have no strong feelings about this other that that 'EA Sports FC' is a horrible horrible name.
The only thing I can think of is that they want 'EA Sports' as the main brand opening the way for other sports 'EA Sports Tennis' or whatever. But 'FC' really? What's that?
The move is actually an excellent one, because FIFA is a corrupt organisation whose main purpose is to syphon funds out of clubs, fans, and countries into the pockets of their morally bankrupt leadership.
They were probably trying to avoid using 'football' or 'soccer', because the former would be misleading to some North Americans, and the latter would be off-putting for some Europeans.
The suffix FC is used by teams on both sides of the Atlantic, and should be well understood by fans of the sport.
Konami has managed to dabble in every single one of these naming conventions by calling the same game "Pro Evolution Soccer" (US-centric), "eFootball" (US-exclusionary) and "Winning Eleven" (name of the sport completely unmentioned) depending on the market/generation of the game. One year they even had their cake and ate it too with the "eFootball Pro Evolution Soccer 2020" game.
Calling it 'football' might confuse some fans of American football, but I really doubt any American fans of 'soccer' will be confused, let alone excluded.
Don't forget that Konami also had the "International Superstar Soccer Pro" games which were named "World Soccer: Winning Eleven '97" in Japan and "Goal Storm '97" in the US.
I don't think it would be misleading, as EA Sports has a long-running NFL franchise game called "Madden [YEAR]", named after football coach John Madden.
Cover art alone is enough to indicate the game being played. There won't ever be person with a helmet on the cover of a soccer game.
Greed indeed! Reading the headline I assumed the FIFA org had sold its naming rights to EA and was busy reprinting stationery and unscrewing the sign on their building! Gran Lardon... https://youtu.be/A0KCbZ7L17I
You touch on a good point - for a sizable proportion of people 'FIFA' means the game instead of, say, 'massively corrupt sports governing body'. This deal was a massive PR win for the organisation over the years as affection for the game rubbed off on them. This is the proverbial own goal.
Yeah, arguably showing the letters FIFA so often while gaming and having fun was actually massive advertisement for FIFA the org. Perhaps the org should have paid for getting all the ad space.
Are we going to see a ridiculous outcome where FIFA license the brand to another game developer, who call it “FIFA 2024”, and then consumers just go ahead and buy “FIFA 2024” and it turns out to be something completely different than they expected?
I'm sure some marketing exec doesn't want to say "Football" or "Soccer", and has a whole worldview prepared with EA Sports Hockey, etc, but this new name completely misses on being actually usable in conversation.
Just like everyone says Facebook instead of Meta, FIFA is probably here to stick for the game in the next 5 years probably. Even an oldschool dumb name like EA Kickmaster would have been better.
In the UK, many football clubs actually have "FC" in their full names, although it's almost always removed in common usage. E.g. "Manchester United F.C."
Ask for an extra half billion dollars, end up with nothing. Quite a fable. I can't imagine there will be many queueing up to take on the license after EA (certainly not at those rates). The only competent player in that area were Konami, and they are in a nosedive into F2P disasters.
Sounds like some of the falling out was each side not wanting to cede the rights to capitalise off stuff like NFTs, which is hilarious.