The deal to take Electronic Arts (EA) private is likely to accelerate the normalisation of $100 (~£74) as the price point for new AAA games, according to finance expert Professor Rob Wilson.
Speaking to Esports Insider following the announcement of EA’s $55 billion buyout, Professor Rob Wilson, Director of Executive Education at the University Campus of Football Business in London, explained what the takeover could mean for consumers.
According to Professor Wilson, fans of the EA Sports FC series could be particularly vulnerable to the impacts of the deal. Tactics are likely to be employed to push ever higher levels of monetisation per user to cover the debts incurred in taking the video game giant private.
Read the full interview below.
ESI: Why is EA being taken private by PIF, Silver Lake and Affinity Partners for $55bn?
Professor Wilson: The EA deal is massive, and it’s no surprise given how strategically the company has positioned itself over the last few years.
It can be considered as a payoff from years of disciplined execution and the evolution of the EA platform. The company has reported a $7.5 billion net revenue result [2025 fiscal year], with 75% of its revenue now being delivered from live services. That’s stuff like in-game purchasing, battle passes and virtual products.
What’s obvious is that the core franchises they own are also scaling. The FIFA, now EA Sports FC, series is built into the psyche of young people and has sold more than 335m units. The Sims 4 has c.85m players globally, and Apex Legends has more than 100m, giving it something in the region of $2 billion in lifetime revenue.
The narrative is framed firmly in scale and trajectory, as well as the eye-watering price tag that has been paid, especially the premium on the stock price.
However, EA is no longer a niche games company. It’s a digital entertainment powerhouse with, reportedly, c.700m accounts, market-leading IP and a business model that has shifted revenue from upfront purchases (the physical game cartridge) to ongoing, online engagement. The upside, therefore, is about recognising how this asset will continue to evolve and compound over time.
ESI: What do we know about the deal, and how could it affect consumers?
Professor Wilson: This is a classic leveraged buyout, with the new consortium paying roughly $55 billion overall, which will be made up of about $36 billion in equity and $20 billion in debt. That debt burden will place big pressure on EA’s cash flow instead of reinvesting profits back into R&D or riskier but perhaps innovative ventures.
The structure means that capital must be diverted toward interest payments and principal reduction, but that’s also typical for deals of this size and nature. The mix of Private Equity and Sovereign Wealth is fascinating, with Saudi Arabia clearly doubling its efforts in the sport and now the gaming sector.
There is a genuine concern for consumers and a real danger that cost-cutting becomes inevitable, monetisation strategies may be stretched further, and they will be charged more. We should expect sharper scrutiny of every in-game dollar, which might bring with it new opportunities for us to spend!
ESI: Could this push EA Sports FC to become the game that breaks the $100 price point before Grand Theft Auto 6?
Professor Wilson: EA Sports FC is quite simply the jewel in the crown and is poised to be a major value driver, with its enormous user base, established brand recognition, and ingrained monetisation, e.g., Ultimate Team, microtransactions.
The idea that new blockbuster titles might push toward $100 or even $120 (£100) is not far-fetched, especially since speculation around GTA 6 suggests the industry is already flirting with that threshold. Whether the market can absorb that without backlash is another question, and I suspect that gamers will revolt if they perceive that the new owners are gouging their cash.
Given the debt load, there is a strong incentive for new owners to sweat that asset, and I would expect even more aggressive pricing models, premium editions, and perhaps inflation of base price in future iterations.
Microtransactions, pay-to-play features, battle passes, and other similar elements are likely to intensify under this ownership. I would expect to see higher levels of monetisation per user, more tiered versions, and more frequent content drops.
Some tactics might be unpopular, and backlash is possible, although we have seen real success with the Fortnite title.
Moreover, in a leveraged environment, there’s little room for generosity, and they will need to deliver new revenue. The priority will be squeezing every incremental dollar from existing franchises rather than funding risky new bets at this stage.
Given the success of EA Sports FC, could EA attempt to challenge Football Manager with their own game, aiming to dominate the football gaming space fully?
Professor Wilson: EA cannot rest on EA Sports FC indefinitely and there is a need for the optimisation of a second cash cow.
The idea of resurrecting or pushing FIFA Manager, or a re-branded EA Sports FC Manager title, to challenge Football Manager fits this template. But, FM has a significant hold in the market. It would, though, help EA capture an adjacent market with a proven fan base while, at the same time, leveraging existing football licenses.
But Sports Interactive’s struggles show that execution can be messy, and any attempt will need fresh investment alongside credible talent. The upside would naturally add value to the company’s valuation if executed well.
Are football fans comparing this move to the leveraged buyout of Manchester United by the Glazer family correct in their comparisons?
Professor Wilson: Using the Glazer takeover as an example is tempting, although it only partially fits.
Manchester United’s issue under the Glazers was the shifting of debt onto the club and relentless financial engineering, often at odds with fans’ interests and sporting priorities.
In EA’s case, the analogy serves as a warning, as a big customer-focused asset could be squeezed for profits.
Yet EA differs in that its core products generate recurring revenue streams (subscriptions, micro transactions, live services) which can, in theory at least, sustain a high leverage if managed cleverly.
The risk is that the new owners treat EA not as a creative studio but as a cash cow to be milked, although I don’t think they’d have invested so heavily and with a premium if that was the intention.
The post $55bn EA deal could usher in $100 games even before GTA 6 is released, according to finance expert appeared first on Esports Insider.