More than a week ago, Battlefield and EA Sports FC publisher Electronic Arts confirmed a $55 billion take-private deal funded by an investor consortium composed of Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, American private equity fund Silver Lake, and Jared Kushner’s investment firm Affinity Partners. Oh, and $20 billion in debt.
The move will see EA become a private company, but a lot of questions around what could become the largest leveraged buyout ever (according to Reuters) remain. In search of answers, we spoke to a number of analysts to understand how the seismic buyout could impact Electronic Arts’ thousands of employees, its products, and the wider video game industry.
In terms of how the deal is structured, the new ownership group will collectively contribute $36 billion, with the final $20 billion coming via debt financed through JP Morgan Chase Bank. The sale will take Electronic Arts off the stock market and place it into the hands of private equity investors, but the pressure of that $20 billion in debt is looming large.
The move is called a leveraged buyout because a portion of the deal is financed through debt. There’s a chance the company could kick on and generate a profit. Or it might become overwhelmed by that debt and go bankrupt—which is precisely what happened when private equity firms purchased Toys R Us in 2005 in a $6.6 billion deal that saddled the company with $5 billion in debt.
The retailer filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. and Canada in 2017 because any cash it did make was used to pay off that debt, according to Marketplace. The difference here is that Toys R Us was in worse shape than Electronic Arts at the time of its sale, struggling to compete with online marketplaces like Amazon.
“The $55 billion buyout saddles EA with debt that only makes sense through new revenue streams”
PitchBook gaming analyst Eric Bellomo told Game Developer that “the record of leveraged buyouts is mixed,” pointing to the failures of Toys R Us and Joann Fabrics but the success of Hilton and Dell. Silver Lake, in particular, will be a boon to this endeavor, he said: “Silver Lake brings meaningful experience in gaming through its position in Unity and a strong track record of top-quartile funds. Historically, the firm has performed as a third-quartile manager overall.”
Still, market research and consulting firm DFC Intelligence founder David Cole explained leveraged buyouts remain “high risk” and often result in “asset sales and short term cost cutting” in the hopes of delivering long-term success. “It all comes down to execution and that remains to be seen,” he added.
Electronic Arts has significant revenue flow—$7.5 billion in fiscal year 2025—that will be important in paying off its debt. But, according to New York University School of Business assistant professor Joost van Dreunen, the company will likely shift priorities to focus on its most profitable areas. He told Game Developer that means potential layoffs and, perhaps, the sale of “dormant IP” like Command & Conquer.
“The $55 billion buyout saddles EA with debt that only makes sense through new revenue streams—likely sports betting and integrated media ventures,” van Dreunen said in an email. “Going private removes Wall Street’s quarterly pressure, allowing for more creative freedom. However, restructuring will follow. EA will likely split into sports and non-sports divisions, with some operations potentially relocated to Saudi Arabia. For studios, this means freedom from earnings calls but closer oversight from investors pursuing geopolitical objectives.”
Electronic Arts said in an employee FAQ made public through a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing that there will be no “immediate” changes to jobs, teams, or daily work—i.e., no “immediate” layoffs. How long is immediate? That’s the question for Electronic Arts employees as the closing date for the deal draws nearer.
Van Dreunen said a “culture shift begins immediately,” even though the closure is months away. “Once a sale is finalized, priorities shift overnight toward strategic alignment with buyer objectives,” he added. “Expect EA’s management to quietly reorganize around sports and live-service divisions in anticipation of new ownership. Going private also buys CEO Andrew Wilson time to prove Battlefield 6 can anchor the post-merger narrative.”
Eventual layoffs and restructuring are “inevitable,” he claimed, as the company reviews its assets. Cole, from DFC Intelligence, said the nature of debt means cutbacks often follow, along with the divestment of “non-essential assets.”
“We see EA doubling down on their high profile sports games and live services,” Cole said. “They may look to sell [off other studios and franchises] to pay off debt. You may see EA shopping around some of its smaller franchises/studios.”
Van Dreunen agreed. He said the new owners will likely focus on Electronic Arts’ sports franchises, which drive a ton of revenue, meaning the rest of the publisher’s catalog could face “aggressive ‘right-sizing’ ahead of potential sell-offs.”
Bellomo suggested that mobile gaming, and, of course, Battlefield, could drive the future of Electronic Arts. “EA is almost certainly evaluating potential synergies in mobile gaming, vis-a-vis Scopely in particular, and preparing for the upcoming launch of Battlefield, which will remain a key focus in the months ahead,” he said.
Bellomo feels the company’s broad strategy is unlikely to shift dramatically as Electronic Arts continues to rely on “core cash-generating franchises and steady revenue streams from in-app purchases, microtransactions, and similar sources.”
“Saudi Arabia and other investors are adding capital to acquire cultural legitimacy”
Van Dreunen noted that this particular leveraged buyout is a little different than others due to Saudi Arabia’s involvement.
“Gaming is the new oil,” van Dreunen said. “Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund is leveraging it to purchase global cultural relevance while diversifying beyond petroleum. With nearly 60 percent of Saudis, approximately 21 million people, playing games, and the domestic market projected to grow 56 percent to $2.8 billion by 2026, EA represents the crown jewel in [Saudi Arabia capital] Riyadh’s Vision 2030 strategy to establish itself as a global gaming hub.”
He continued: “This LBO diverges from the traditional playbook: instead of cutting costs to service debt, Saudi Arabia and other investors are adding capital to acquire cultural legitimacy. They’re likely indifferent to short-term margins, viewing EA as a long-term anchor for broader entertainment ambitions. This could temporarily insulate EA from layoffs and creative risk aversion, though debt always comes due eventually.”
Saudi Arabia’s investment into the video game industry is part of a larger strategy to acquire that cultural cache, with the country having already sunk billions into the games and esports industries through its Public Investment Fund.
This year, Saudi-owned esports and video game firm Savvy Games Group acquired the majority of Pokemon Go maker Niantic’s video game business for $3.5 billion. Niantic is now under Scopely, which was acquired by Savvy Games Group in 2023 for $4.9 billion. Savvy Games is owned by the Public Investment Fund, which has also invested into Nintendo, Take-Two Interactive, Embracer Group, and more.
Outside of traditional gaming, Saudi Arabia is heavily invested in esports—it owns ESL FaceIt Group and fighting game tournament Evo. The approach has been compared to Saudi Arabia’s investment in sports, which the Human Rights Watch calls sportswashing: “a word to describe countries notorious for human rights abuses hosting major sporting events.”
Saudi Arabia has a notoriously bad human rights record, according to Amnesty International. The Saudi government has been accused of murdering journalist Jamal Khashoggi (allegedly at the order of Crown Prince and Public Investment Fund chairman Mohammed bin Salman), quashing free speech, discriminating against women and members of the LGBTQ+ community (LGBTQI+ rights are not legally recognized or protected in Saudi Arabia), and outlawing protests and demonstrations.
What all this adds up to is the potential for “more sovereign money in the sandbox,” van Dreunen said. “Once state-backed investors treat games as geopolitical assets, the floodgates open,” he continued.
“That means bigger budgets, fewer exits, and politics embedded in content decisions. For developers, that means deeper pockets but heightened scrutiny over cultural representation. Recent tariffs and barriers to high-skilled talent entering the U.S. also create openings for markets like Europe to expand their gaming footprint. The center of gravity in gaming is shifting from market dynamics to geopolitical power plays.”
