FIFA Reportedly Wants To Charge EA $1 Billion Every Four Years For Name

We now have a clue to why EA Sports is considering changing the name of FIFA, its giant football franchise.

The New York Times reports that there's a dispute between EA, the developer of the FIFA games, and FIFA, the worldwide football organization. The disagreement is reportedly over cost and new revenue streams.

A new report in the @nytimes states that the dispute between EA and FIFA is related to cost and new revenue streams

FIFA wants to charge EA double the amount ($1bn+ every 4 years) for the license and limit EA's ability to monetise beyond the game itself

— Daniel Ahmad (@ZhugeEX) October 13, 2021

According to the report, FIFA wants to charge EA $1 billion every four years to use the FIFA license within its game. Additionally, the organization wants to limit EA's monetization of the game.

FIFA wants to limit EA's moneymaking opportunities to strictly what can be found in the game. EA wants to explore monetizing, "highlights of actual games, arena video game tournaments and digital products like NFTs," the New York Times says.

Last week, EA said they are exploring the idea of renaming the EA Sports football games. EA also says the FIFA partnership is different than their other official partnerships, meaning the loss of FIFA wouldn't mean the loss of official team and player names. The license only gives EA the name, logo, and rights to use the World Cup within the game.

It seems a decision is likely by the end of the year. EA has already trademarked "EA Sports FC", which could end up being the new name of the franchise if EA and FIFA can't come to terms.

We called this year's installment, FIFA 22, "good" in our review, saying, "Microtransactions still loom large, but small iterative changes and the horsepower of new-gen consoles combine to make FIFA 22 feel like a worthwhile upgrade without needing anything revolutionary or terribly exciting from EA’s side."

Logan Plant is a freelance writer for IGN. You can find him on Twitter @LoganJPlant.

Continue reading...

Users who are viewing this thread