“We are not EA Sports FC 26. We are not Madden NFL 21. We make nowhere near as much money as they do, and everyone knows it,” an anonymous high-level source told Insider Gaming regarding the financial reality of the studio’s college football franchise.
When EA Sports resurrected the franchise in July 2024 after a 14-year hiatus caused by legal disputes over student-athlete name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights, fans flooded back. College Football 25 finished 2024 as the second-best-selling game in the United States. However, that initial wave of nostalgia has not fully sustained itself in subsequent iterations. College Football 26 dropped to the seventh-best-selling game of 2025, and College Football 27 currently sits at number 10 in yearly rankings.
Compounding the cooling sales momentum is the starkly domestic appeal of the sport. Unlike EA Sports FC, which enjoys a massive global audience across Europe, Asia, and the Americas, college football’s primary market remains concentrated almost entirely within the United States. This leaves the franchise with a narrower revenue ceiling compared to EA’s global flagship titles.
Soaring NIL and Licensing Expenses Stin Production Budgets
The primary driver behind the team’s existential anxiety is the dramatic escalation of operational and licensing costs. To feature real-life college athletes in the 2024 release, EA Sports compensated each player $600, culminating in a total player-payout pool of roughly $7 million. Those expenses have since tripled.
Under current agreements, collegiate athletes now receive $1,500 each for their NIL rights. For the latest installment, EA’s total player compensation bill ballooned to approximately $20 million. Beyond paying athletes, the publisher must also secure expensive licensing rights from individual universities, conferences, and postseason bowl games. These millions in upfront rights fees represent pure overhead before standard game development costs are even factored into the ledger.
Monetization Push and Player Backlash Over Single-Player Modes
Faced with narrowing profit margins, EA attempted to introduce aggressive monetization strategies earlier this year, targeting key areas of the game including the single-player experience. The publisher floated plans that led players to feel pressured into paying extra money just to progress efficiently through solo content, sparking an immediate and fierce community backlash during the summer.
Faced with widespread protests from the player base, EA eventually stepped back and withdrew the specific monetization framework, though company representatives indicated at the time that alternative microtransaction options would be re-evaluated and integrated into future releases.
That prospective return of in-game purchases to single-player modes has intensified internal worries among developers.
Despite the pessimistic outlook voiced by several high-level insiders, not everyone on the development team shares the same bleak perspective. Other internal voices maintain that the brand still possesses a strong foundation and a viable path forward. While production plans are already mapped out for upcoming editions of the series, the long-term viability of college football virtual simulations will hinge heavily on whether EA can successfully balance ballooning licensing expenses with consumer-friendly monetization.
Related reading
