One could now say: Oh, it’s just a video game. In addition a few capitalistic numbers, in which they have always been infatuated, in both industries: EA Sports has earned more than $20 billion from the series over the past 20 years, and the world governing body gets $150 million a year in licensing fees. With 325 million units sold, it is the most successful sports video game series in history, according to the “Guinness Book of Records,” and the single format “FIFA 12” is considered the sports game with the highest sales in one week, at $186 million.

In addition, with 150 million active players, there are the aspects of pop culture phenomena that are difficult to measure: When tennis player Daniil Medvedev throws himself to the ground after his US Open victory, says “L2 plus Left” about it and thus means the key combination for the dead fish cheer – what is such a moment worth? Or when someone isn’t even that interested in soccer, but because of gambling with friends knows that Niklas Süle will be moving from FC Bayern to Borussia Dortmund? When multiple video game world champions Dennis and Daniel Schellhase, better known as the “FIFA Twins,” become ambassadors for the 2006 World Cup in Germany?

Fifa has apparently overreached in its demands

The question therefore, of course: who gambled? The short answer, unbelievable as it may sound: the world governing body, which stands to lose significantly more than EA Sports from the busted deal and stands little chance of gaining anything from it. Yes, the manufacturer may lose this name, which for many is more synonymous with a video game than with the federation (just as many no longer even know that John Madden, namesake of the EA Sports football simulation, was a brilliant coach), but otherwise the corporation retains pretty much everything that makes the series legendary – and even gains.

“It’s about, what can we do more for the players?” said Andrew Wilson of the New York Times. Once a Fifa engineer, he’s now the head of EA Sports and most recently negotiated personally with Fifa boss Gianni Infantino to secure an extension after all: “But it’s also about the questions: How can we introduce more game modes? How can we reach more players? How can we grow beyond the boundaries of the game itself?”

Now it gets interesting: Fifa is said to have demanded not only a doubling of license fees to $300 million per year, but also, for one thing, that only the world governing body’s partners be seen in the environment of the video game – a procedure that can also be observed, for example, in the so-called “ban miles” around World Cup stadiums. On the other hand, Fifa wanted to position its brand elsewhere, for example, to make it available to other manufacturers of soccer simulations. A statement from the world governing body now says that Fifa wants to diversify its gaming rights and thus offer “more choice to soccer and gaming fans”.

This sounds a bit like a broken-hearted abandoner claiming that he can now go out with lots of other people – the fact is that yes, EA Sports is losing that name that is inextricably linked to the game, and it is losing the right to offer a World Cup in-game, but it retains numerous other elements via nearly 300 other licensing rights, and exclusively: those to the English Premier League, for example, the German Bundesliga, the Italian Serie A and the Champions League – and therefore the rights to more than 19,000 players, 700 clubs and 100 stadiums.

What’s more, without Fifa’s restrictions, EA Sports can now enter into collaborations with companies that were previously not allowed. So, for example, sporting goods manufacturers, and what that means, showed the Twitter entry of Nike on Tuesday afternoon. Translated there is to read: “Football, may I introduce you to the future? We are proud to partner with EA Sports FC and shape the future of the beautiful game. More then in June 2023, are you ready?” EA Sports could now expand into other areas, ticket and jersey sellers or betting companies for example, but nothing is officially known about that yet.

EA Sports has ingeniously linked three elements.

To understand why Fifa arguably needs the series more than the other way around, you should know how the games became a pop-cultural phenomenon. There have been some wonderful soccer simulations: “Sensible Soccer” (1992), for example, with the simplest gameplay and terrific blood strokes; or “Kick Off 2” (1990), which allowed multiple shot variations despite having only one button. Or “Virtua Striker” (1995), the first simulation with 3D figures. Or “Actua Soccer” (1995), which captured movements of Sheffield Wednesday players via motion capture technology. And of course the “Pro Evolution Soccer” series, for a long time the big EA Sports competitor because of its better gameplay.

EA Sports ingeniously tied three elements together. First, those rights it had owned since 1993 and marketed aggressively; in the 2006 ad, for example, which said, “Haven’t you dreamed of the perfect shot? When the whole nation holds its breath? You are Wayne Rooney. You are Ronaldinho. You are a star!” It was the promise of being able to play like the megastars, later combined with the possibility of integrating one’s own image into the game and scoring the most goals as the star of one’s favorite club.

This was the lure for casual gamers, for whom “FIFA” became a playground the way ball fields are for real soccer players. Around this time, the corporation improved the gameplay to such an extent that “FIFA” became a variant for professional gamers and was thus used at video game events. The third aspect: pop culture references – so if a video popped up on social media of amateur soccer players performing an insane cheer like “Dead Fish,” it was soon in the video game (and later at the US Open because of Medvedev).

EA Sports has a virtual monopoly on soccer simulations, and the company knows how to market this; via collectible picture-like “Player Packs,” for example, through which players can improve their teams. Or by creating worlds beyond soccer, as other video games like “Fortnite” or “Roblox” do. So the game itself is unlikely to change much, as the past few years have shown: small improvements, often cosmetic or in gameplay – and people still buy.

Fifa has been trying to monetize digital transformation for years, with rather mixed success. Gareth Sutcliffe, video game expert at Enders Analysis, succinctly summarizes what just happened: “EA will continue to step on the gas. They have the technical resources, they have the intellectual property on a fantastic game, they have opportunities to market. Fifa has: the name – and otherwise?” Admittedly, this is also a statement about a fundamental problem for the world governing body.

This is not good news for Fifa boss Infantino, who has been brushing off all the scandals surrounding him and the federation with the prospect of higher revenues – so he can secure his third term as president. Now, however, he is losing an annual three-digit million sum and a reliable partner, with no adequate replacement currently in sight. In the fall, another “FIFA” version will be released, after which the advertising slogan could read: “FIFA” is now called “EA Sports FC”, but nothing else changes – at least for EA Sports.