EA wipes out rival NFL titles with new licensing deal

By Games Industry.biz Published 14 December, 2004

Dominance of NFL sports games assured as EA plays its ace in the hole against ESPN.

Leading publisher Electronic Arts has announced the signing of an exclusive five-year deal with the NFL and its players association, effectively eliminating any competition to the firm's NFL sports titles from rival publishers.

The deal signs the National Football League and the NFL Players Inc licensing division into five years of exclusivity with EA, preventing any other company from using the NFL brands, stadiums, player names and player likenesses in their games.

The deal will come as a devastating blow to SEGA and Take Two, whose ESPN sports range made up significant ground on the EA Sports titles this year thanks to an aggressive $19.99 price point.

Without the ability to use NFL players and brands in next year's game, however, the ESPN NFL titles are likely to sink without trace, as are all other rival titles - leaving EA's Madden NFL and NFL Street titles as the only real contenders in the sector.

EA has been seeking this form of deal from the NFL for several years, but it seems likely that its lobbying became even more intense this year after the pressure from Take Two's pricing forced the firm to drop the prices of several of its own range of sports titles.

The company also admits to paying a premium for the exclusive license, but chairman Larry Probst clearly believes that the price was worth it, enthusing in an official statement that "we are excited about the opportunity to further enhance our relationship with the NFL and Players Inc. The five-year agreements will usher NFL fans through the console technology transition with new ideas and innovative game play experiences."

Take Two, understandably, is somewhat less impressed with the deal. "We believe that the decisions of the National Football League and Players Inc to grant an exclusive license for videogames do a tremendous disservice to the consumers and sports fans whose funds ultimately support the NFL," the publisher said in a statement, "by limiting their choices, curbing creativity and almost certainly leading to higher game prices."

However, the company claims that the loss of the NFL brand will not affect its bottom line significantly, and moved to reassure shareholders that the negative impact to the firm will be insubstantial.

"While sports games in general are an important part of Take-Two's product diversification strategy," the firm explained, "the licensed NFL game we distributed on behalf of SEGA this year was not a material contributor to our profitability to date, nor was it expected to be a meaningful contributor in the upcoming year. We remain committed to continued diversification of our product portfolio, including sports."

The exclusive NFL deal isn't the first exclusive sports licensing deal that Electronic Arts has struck - with one high profile example being the firm's exclusive licensing deal with the English Premier League, which has forced rival titles such as Konami's Pro Evolution Soccer series to use fake player names and rename famous clubs, with Liverpool becoming Merseyside Red, for example.

Picture of Games.

About Games Industry.biz

Read more articles from Games by visiting the Games Industry.biz archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (38) Latest comment 7 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Lothar Hex #1 7 years ago

    Woop de do?

  • mcmonkeyplc #2 7 years ago

    Sega must buy something that EA needs now. hmmmmmmmmmm how about all the car licenses in the world!

  • Universal_Hamster #3 7 years ago

    All hail EA, All hail EA. Come witness the beginning of the videogaming monopoly.

  • Mr_Sleep #4 7 years ago

    I would have thought the Mergers and Monopoly commision would have something to say about this but apparently not.

  • dynarama #5 7 years ago

    A match made in heaven.

  • mad_caddy #6 7 years ago

    bugger, the NFL 2k games were brillaint, another license ruined!

  • Royal Fool #7 7 years ago

    Uh... great? But I couldn't care less, these games aren't even published here in Europe.

    (Maybe they are... but at least I can't ever recall seeing them on the shelves or at online shops. Whoop-dee-doo!)

    (I also hate sports games.)
    Edited by 1 at 14/12/04 @ 17:39

  • ekko #8 7 years ago

    Sigh. EA should just go die in a corner somewhere. They're on a mission to remove all creativity from the gaming industry and sadly they're doing really well at it.

    The other companies will probably either have to do a "Pro Evo" with dodgy (but changable) names or go straight to the clubs and buy the licences off them a la Club Football - although that might not be an option for them as the way the NFL is controlled.

  • infoxicated #9 7 years ago

    They are published here - Madden sells pretty well, actually.

  • oceanmotion #10 7 years ago

    It sucks but they are damn clever though. Terrible for the consumer.

  • tengu #11 7 years ago

    Fuck's sake EA! Enough with the sports games already! Stick to what you're good at... like First person shooters...

  • Pirotic #12 7 years ago

    Does seem a bit over the top buying the whole bloody franchise - i just hope it doesn't affect games already in development.

    Then again, it's NFL - its not even proper football so who cares :D

  • bionutz #13 7 years ago

    this happens in US or not? why doesn't the Office agains Monopoly acts against it? I don't know exactly the name ... (Competition something?).

  • sam_spade #14 7 years ago

    Shit dudes, those Sega boys are making us look stoopid with those good games, so we's gonna hafta be buying up the franchise so they can't be makings anymore.

  • Royal Fool #15 7 years ago

    Ayup. Scruffy thinks this be one of 'em buyout thingies.

    *spits into spitoon*

    *misses*

    Gosh darn it!

  • RumpyStumpy #16 7 years ago

    Good Luck to EA is what I say.

    So they have become so successful that they can now afford to pay the NFL more money than anyone else which is good for the NFL and it's fans. So they get to use real names and stadiums, big deal.

    It amazes me that people think that EA are still pulling the wool over the casual gamers eyes with their below par/rubbish/rip off/crap/insert your own anti EA sentiment. There aren't that many new/casual gamers out there for EA to remain at the top of the game just by taking advantage of the uneducated gamer. I buy their games because they are fun in the first place, and have a standard of production that I appreciate.

    Oh and if your saying ESPN wouldn't be any good without the official names your sort of arguing against yourself as many of you don't think EA games are any better for having them. Pro Evo Soccer doesn't but it (in my opinion which is all I care about) plays a better game of Soccer than FIFA does.

    Well done EA for giving peopl what they want.
    Edited by 1 at 14/12/04 @ 23:10

  • The-Bodybuilder #17 7 years ago

    "With the way i see things now, i wouldn't really be shocked if EA decided to create their own console."

    I pray that this is what they do, because that will be the end for them.In doing so, they will let other devlopers shine and stand out.

    No amount of "EA Games" logo and advertising will help them, simply because the console would be riddles with mediocore games, of which the consumer will realize by themselves.

    And they will be no going back for them, it would be too late for them because everyone will see thier games for what they are, and will have built thier own relationships with either new franchises, or existing ones.

  • RumpyStumpy #18 7 years ago

    "No amount of "EA Games" logo and advertising will help them, simply because the console would be riddles with mediocore games, of which the consumer will realize by themselves. "

    So why don't they realise it now. If the consumer didn't like what they were doiung by now, they wouldn't be the biggest publisher in the world. People buy EA games year after year because they like and enjoy them. Seems to me that people like to knock success.

  • The-Bodybuilder #19 7 years ago

    "So why don't they realise it now. If the consumer didn't like what they were doiung by now, they wouldn't be the biggest publisher in the world. People buy EA games year after year because they like and enjoy them. Seems to me that people like to knock success."

    The people that "enjoy" these games are casual gamers and don't know better.

    My brother (who is also a casual gamer) told me to buy both goldeneye: rogue agent and NFS: U yestarday simply becuase he played it in a friends house and thought the games we're "the best."

    Naturally, he has hardly played any FPS or racing games to know which game is good or not, and just follows hype.

    Are you telling me that rouge agent is outselling metroid prime: echoes because its better?

  • Clive_Dunn #20 7 years ago

    This just smacks of EA being unable to compete with ESPN so it buys up the exclusive rights to the NFL. I think its rather sad that rather than compete on a level playing field EA has to resort to these tactics, business wise it makes perfect sense for them but I can't see how this is good for the consumer.

    The NFL should however be ashamed of itself, this is a monumentally short sighted decision. Madden will become even more dominant over the next 5 years, making it highly unlikely any of the standard publishers will be able to bid next time around.

    A dark day for fans.

  • RumpyStumpy #21 7 years ago

    "Are you telling me that rouge agent is outselling metroid prime: echoes because its better?"

    I don't like the metroid games and it is only a matter of opinion which is better. Also so called casual gamers spend more money and time playing games than the so called hardcore, so it's now their market and we're the minority.

    I have been playing games for about 25 years now but it doesn't make my taste or opinion any better than the so called casual gamer. Maybe games like REZ, ICO, Metriod etc don't sell well because the hardcore minority want to keep them for themselves and don't introduce the delights of such games to the more casual gamer. However I believe that they just don't appeal to the majority and its a fact of life.

    Is Spiderman or the Lord of the Rings a better film than say "It's a wonderful life" Not in my opinion but they did more at the box office. So get off the hardcore bandwagon because there aren't enough of you to make a difference anyway :-)

  • Clive_Dunn #22 7 years ago

    "I have been playing games for about 25 years now but it doesn't make my taste or opinion any better than the so called casual gamer. Maybe games like REZ, ICO, Metriod etc don't sell well because the hardcore minority want to keep them for themselves and don't introduce the delights of such games to the more casual gamer. However I believe that they just don't appeal to the majority and its a fact of life."

    Or is it because EA have the reserves of cash to market their games properly ?

  • RumpyStumpy #23 7 years ago

    Or is it because EA have the reserves of cash to market their games properly ?

    So do other publishers. You can't keep fooling people time and again. If the product wasn't enjoyable and of a good standard then people wouldn't keep buying them and some of the so called better games would do better.

    Sega spent loads on marketing the dreamcast but it didn't make it a success. It's about knowing the market and your position in it. If you don't like EA games fine. Go and play the ones you think are better and feel smug in the fact your not one of the so called sheep. If there were enough people out there who did the same we wouldn't be talking about EA as the big bad corporate who churns out crap each year. You would be attacking who ever else was at the top of the pile. Seems to me that people like to knock success and praise faliure, maybe making them feel better for their own short comings.

  • sir_tripod #24 7 years ago

    I genuinely feel disgusted by this. This is corporate manslaughter; capitalism at its worst. This article apitomises everything that people don't like about EA, poor product aimed at naïve consumers who know no better, blinded by blanket marketing.

    EA make titles which ARE average. I can't imagine anyone realistically saying that an EA game is the best of a type wherever there's competition. As soon as there is, EA flash their cash. They don't beat them with a superior product and THAT'S what's wrong.

    If anyone else pays to have a display, EA pay more money for a bigger one put in front. YOU ARE FREE TO PLAY ANY GAME YOU WANT - AS LONG AS IT AN EA GAME!!!

    I don't like to see profanity in places like this due to the audience but EA are nothing but a bunch of wankers. Absolute wankers.

  • RumpyStumpy #25 7 years ago

    "I genuinely feel disgusted by this. This is corporate manslaughter; capitalism at its worst."

    It's capitalism at its best. Any number of companies could have reached the top but it was EA who gave consumers what they want and therefore became the most successful. They didn't always have the levels of cash and the marketing weight they do now. Good luck to EA.

    The other companies will have to raise their game to compete and thats a good thing.

  • Zomoniac #26 7 years ago

    EA make titles which ARE average. I can't imagine anyone realistically saying that an EA game is the best of a type wherever there's competition. As soon as there is, EA flash their cash. They don't beat them with a superior product and THAT'S what's wrong.

    I despise EA and everything they stand for, but I will comment on this, because I feel they have one exception (I'm not counting BO3 etc, ie products that were 90% finished by bought out companies), and that is that every game made by the EA Sports Big team, bar Freakstyle, was fantastic. SSX and the Street games are actually genuinely superior to any of the competition in all terms except sonically (will they PLEASE remove those sodding DJs).

  • Dougs #27 7 years ago

    Some EA games are good, some are bad. I make up my own mind, although I do get frustrated at the pull towards EA games purely due to marketing spend.

    As for the NFL dea, couldn't really give a monkeys. Hasn't harmed PES with the FIFA deal.

  • MoFo #28 7 years ago

    "...raise their game to compete and thats a good thing. "

    raise their game to the standard of EA quality? Surely that'd mean lowering their game quality?

    My experience of EA games is that they appear visually slick and are fun intially but they have very limited depth/replay value. Their games quality isn't the reason they've done so well, it's their ruthless marketing strategy and ripping off their developers (allegedly).

  • Clive_Dunn #29 7 years ago

    So Rumpy Stumpy - do you work for EA or are you just stupid ?

    The other companies did raise their standards, they produced a better game and scared EA into buying up the NFL rights. Madden has been substandard for years, and yet now it is the only viable title for the mass market.

    Exactly how does that benefit the consumer ? It only benefits EA.

  • richispsycho #30 7 years ago

    I think the slogan for EA has changed from "Challenge Everything" to "Buy Everything". The sad thing is they have the cash to do it.

  • RumpyStumpy #31 7 years ago

    The other companies did raise their standards, they produced a better game and scared EA into buying up the NFL rights. Madden has been substandard for years, and yet now it is the only viable title for the mass market.

    The other companies could have bought the rights. Also if the games are so good the lack of names won't matter. Look at PES as an example.

    No I don't work for EA and as for being stupid well thats up to other people to decide. However what I am not is rude Mr Dunn.

  • Russty Cage #32 7 years ago

    Like EA hasn't pissed me of enough already!

    I guess EA figured out that the only way to get customers to buy their crappy products are tons of commersials and buying up rights so they will be the only company able to sell games based on those brands.

  • Zomoniac #33 7 years ago

    The other companies could have bought the rights. Also if the games are so good the lack of names won't matter. Look at PES as an example.

    How is PES an example? Ok, so it outsold FIFA in the first week when the hardcore release day buyers who typically prefer Pro Evo bought it, but pretty soon, and to this day FIFA remains on top, and sells far more over the year as a whole. Because it is a better game? No. Because Wayne Rooney is already at Manchester United and has the Vodafone logo on the front of his shirt? Yes. Pro Evo may do well by the standards of most games that are directly competing against a major EA title, but it certainly isn't a case of "names don't matter, if the game is better it will do better" as you suggest.

  • RumpyStumpy #34 7 years ago

    How is PES an example? Ok, so it outsold FIFA in the first week when the hardcore release day buyers who typically prefer Pro Evo bought it, but pretty soon, and to this day FIFA remains on top, and sells far more over the year as a whole. Because it is a better game? No. Because Wayne Rooney is already at Manchester United and has the Vodafone logo on the front of his shirt? Yes. Pro Evo may do well by the standards of most games that are directly competing against a major EA title, but it certainly isn't a case of "names don't matter, if the game is better it will do better" as you suggest.

    Wasn't my argument in the first place it was from anti EA gamer originally and he used it to highlight the fact that PES was a better football sim, but I get your point.

    However there are other publishers out there with the cash to do an EA and buy the rights to the NFL. However they didn't and EA had the foresight to do so. If the real names and logos are so important to gamers it seems reasonable and intelligent that a company like EA would pay for this. Afterall the NFL and it's fans get the benifit of all that lovely EA cash. Why not have a go at the NFL for being a money grabbing corporate instead of EA.

    Anyway its not real football in the first place :-)

  • savant #35 7 years ago

    Man, this sucks. Not because I was likely to buy an EA NFL game, but because it demonstrates once again EA's heavy-handed bullying tactics.

    They can afford to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the rights to use NFL property, but they won't pay their staff overtime or give them decent working conditions. They'll buy out independents (Criterion, the attempted DICE buyout etc.), while at the same time concentrating their product range on yearly franchise releases that guarantee money.

    It's no wonder that so many people, myself included, are cynical about how the industry is 'progressing', and I don't see things changing with the next hardware cycle.

    Sure, EA is capitalism incarnate, but that still doesn't mean we understand their decisions on a more personal or moral level. It just stinks to stifle creativity, push competitors out of the genre market and over-hype crap games to impressionable people who know no better.

    I haven't bought an EA game since Undying and I won't be buying another, at least for the time being.

  • bloke #36 7 years ago

    Virtually the same thing happened with the FIA and Sony over F1 didn't it?

    Didn't really hear anyone crying foul then.

  • Zero Beat #37 7 years ago

    Perhaps because both SCEE and EA's F1 games were terrible at the time.

  • sam_spade #38 7 years ago

    $300m price tag, according to CNN. And also some good analysis of potential fallout from the deal.