The EA buyout closed on August 4, 2026, placing the publisher behind EA Sports FC, The Sims, Battlefield and Mass Effect under the control of Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund. The transaction values Electronic Arts at roughly $55 billion, making it one of the largest leveraged buyouts on record.
Shareholders will receive $210 per share, and EA is being delisted from Nasdaq. Andrew Wilson will remain chief executive, providing operational continuity while almost everything above him on the ownership chart changes.
The final ownership split is:
- Public Investment Fund: 93.4%
- Silver Lake: 5.5%
- Affinity Partners: 1.1%
The European Commission described PIF as acquiring “sole control” of EA, rather than treating the three investors as equal partners. That distinction matters when assessing who ultimately has influence over strategy, spending and management.
How the $55 billion transaction is financed
The headline figure is EA’s enterprise value, which includes the value of its equity and debt rather than simply representing cash handed to shareholders.
EA’s filings say the consortium is contributing approximately $36 billion in equity. That total includes PIF’s existing 9.9% stake, which was rolled into the transaction, as well as capital from Silver Lake and Affinity Partners.
JPMorgan committed a $20 billion debt package to the acquisition vehicle, with about $18 billion initially expected to be drawn when the deal closed. Bloomberg reported that the financing was later distributed among more than a dozen banks.
That structure corrects some early descriptions suggesting PIF alone had supplied the full $36 billion and separately borrowed another $20 billion. The equity comes from all three investors, although PIF contributes the overwhelming majority and now controls the company.
The practical question is what the borrowing means for EA’s budgets. Debt requires interest and repayment, which can increase pressure to cut costs, raise margins or extract more revenue from existing products. A large loan does not automatically produce layoffs or more aggressive monetisation, but it does give management fewer reasons to tolerate underperforming projects. The spreadsheets, regrettably, do not play favourites.
Why workers and players are concerned
Bloomberg journalist Jason Schreier previously warned that the financing could lead to “mass layoffs, more aggressive monetization, and other big cost-cutting measures.” Christopher Dring, editor-in-chief and co-founder of The Game Business, also said private equity ownership generally brings a more hands-on and aggressive management approach.
Those concerns arrive after several difficult years for game workers. EA has already cancelled projects and cut jobs, including further layoffs affecting teams connected to Battlefield despite the commercial performance of Battlefield 6. Released in October 2025, the game sold more than seven million copies in its first three days, setting a franchise record.
More than 40 United States lawmakers wrote to Federal Trade Commission chair Andrew Ferguson about the takeover. They argued that EA already held substantial wage-setting power in the games industry and said workers were facing “instability, shrinking opportunities, and repeated rounds of layoffs.”
Players Alliance HQ also organised opposition to the sale. Protesters attempted to deliver more than 70,000 petition signatures at EA’s headquarters, warning that the new ownership could affect representation, free expression and LGBTQI+ themes across EA’s games.
EA has said it will continue to be guided by its “cultural values.” No announced change to individual franchises accompanied the closing, so claims about future censorship remain concerns rather than confirmed policy.
What regulators reviewed before approval
EA shareholders approved the merger on December 22, 2025. In the United States, the antitrust review effectively concluded when the Hart-Scott-Rodino waiting period expired on February 9, 2026.
The European Commission approved the transaction on July 23, removing the final major regulatory obstacle. Its assessment did not find competition concerns serious enough to block the acquisition.
The political relationships surrounding the consortium have nevertheless attracted scrutiny. Affinity Partners is led by Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of United States President Donald Trump. PIF had previously invested $2 billion in Affinity, creating an existing financial connection between the majority owner and the consortium’s smallest participant.
The ownership percentages make the balance clear. Silver Lake and Affinity provide private equity participation and expertise, but PIF holds more than nine-tenths of the company. Regulatory language identifying the Saudi fund as the party with sole control reinforces that reading.
For EA, becoming private removes quarterly stock-market pressure and could allow investment decisions to be made over longer periods. It also reduces public visibility because privately held companies face fewer disclosure requirements. Whether that produces patient development schedules or simply quieter cost-cutting will depend on decisions that have not yet been announced.
Why EA appeals to Saudi Arabia’s PIF
EA generated $7.53 billion in revenue and $887 million in net income during fiscal 2026. Its annual revenue has remained between roughly $7.4 billion and $7.6 billion for three consecutive years, according to figures highlighted by the Associated Press.
That stability is supported by long-running sports games and live-service titles, which receive continuing updates and sell digital content after release. Digital purchases accounted for 81% of game units sold in fiscal 2026. Consoles generated $4.69 billion, while the Sony and Microsoft ecosystems together supplied about 60% of company revenue.
Those platform relationships are an important constraint. New ownership can adjust budgets, staffing and commercial priorities, but EA still depends heavily on PlayStation and Xbox distribution. PIF has bought control of the publisher, not the hardware and storefronts through which much of its business operates.
George Osborn, author of Power Play: Video Games, Politics and the Battle for Global Influence, has argued that EA offers PIF more than financial returns. Its football games connect the owner with thousands of licensed players, hundreds of clubs and dozens of leagues worldwide.
That reach complements Saudi investment in Newcastle United, four Saudi Pro League clubs and major esports events, including the 2025 Esports World Cup. EA Sports FC therefore sits at the intersection of games, football rights, sponsorship and global media distribution, an unusually useful combination for an investor already spending heavily across sport.
The human rights issue will remain attached
Critics have described Saudi Arabia’s sporting and entertainment investments as “sportswashing,” meaning the use of prominent events or properties to improve the country’s international image while diverting attention from its human rights record. The Saudi government has repeatedly rejected that accusation.
Concerns around EA are particularly sensitive because franchises such as The Sims have long included same-sex relationships and broad character representation. In Saudi Arabia, consensual same-sex sexual activity can be punished by flogging or death under interpretations of Sharia law.
PIF is controlled by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. A 2019 United Nations report concluded that Saudi Arabia was responsible for the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a critic of the government. Saudi Arabia has denied responsibility.
Osborn said ownership gives a state seeking to shape perceptions access to an entertainment company with proven global reach. That does not establish that political intervention in EA’s games will occur, but it explains why players, workers and human rights campaigners are watching more than quarterly sales figures.
For now, EA retains its chief executive, established studios and major franchises. The immediate change is financial and structural: a publicly traded publisher has become a heavily leveraged private company controlled by a sovereign wealth fund. The longer-term test will be visible in staffing levels, development budgets, monetisation decisions and whether EA’s stated cultural values survive contact with its new ownership.
