While there is currently little to no drama on soccer pitches around the world thanks to the pandemic, there’s still plenty of soccer’s signature flailing and diving in courtrooms as hundreds of players take on EA. In a fight that will likely become a defining moment for EA and FIFA games (and probably all sports games, if we’re honest), one player’s agent has cut to the chase and admitted that it’s “all about the money.”

For those unacquainted with the current fiasco, superstar striker Zlatan Ibrahimovic recently took to Twitter to express his concerns about not being compensated for appearing in EA’s FIFA 21. Ibrahimovic has appeared in every FIFA game dating back to 2002, according to a statement from EA.

During an interview on a sports radio show (as spotted by Eurogamer), Ibrahimovic’s agent Mino Raiola was asked why he hasn’t filed an injunction to stop EA from using the player’s image. “Everything in its time,” Raiola replied. The interviewer pressed further, saying, “This is either about stopping using Zlatan’s image, or it’s about money. I suspect it’s about money.”

“It’s all about money,” said Raiola. “EA Sports is not a charity foundation… This is about money. This is about rights. This is about who can exploit whose rights. And it’s a principle. And why we don’t do things before or after is a call we will make and we don’t need to explain now.”

EA has maintained that it legally purchases the rights to use not only the likeness of players, but team kits, stadiums, and more through long-existing agreements with teams, leagues, and player unions like FIFPro. In cases where a player is not represented by a team or union — such as the retired David Beckham — EA has struck deals with that individual. In Beckham’s case, the deal amounted to £40 million.

Without team, franchise, and player union deals, it’s likely that it would be unfeasible for EA (or any developer) to be able to license and pay thousands of players from around the world for their likeness. At least, that’s the argument that is expected to be made if this case continues to move forward and EA finds that it needs to defend itself in court.

Source: Eurogamer