EA Faces Binary Future: Transformative $55B Takeover or Regulatory Setback
Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) finds itself at the precipice of the most transformative event in its forty-year corporate history. On September 29, 2025, the Redwood City-based publisher entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by a consortium of investors led by the Public Investment Fund (PIF) of Saudi Arabia, alongside private equity firm Silver Lake and Affinity Partners, an investment firm founded by Jared Kushner. The all-cash transaction, which values the company at an enterprise value of approximately $55 billion, or $210.00 per share, represents a premium of approximately 25% to the unaffected share price prior to the emergence of deal rumors. This proposed transaction is not merely a financial restructuring but a geopolitical maneuver that underscores the strategic importance of interactive entertainment intellectual property in the global battle for cultural influence and digital attention.
For the institutional investor, the investment thesis for Electronic Arts has fundamentally bifurcated. The stock no longer trades solely on the organic growth prospects of its live services portfolio but rather as a merger arbitrage instrument. The current trading price, hovering near $201 per share , reflects a market probability-weighted assessment of the deal's consummation. The spread between the current price and the $210 offer represents the risk premium assigned to the regulatory hurdles that lie ahead, most notably the review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). This review is complicated by the involvement of a sovereign wealth fund and politically sensitive partners in an election-adjacent timeframe.
Underpinning this transaction is EA’s status as the preeminent publisher of sports simulation video games in the Western world. The company’s portfolio, anchored by the re-branded EA SPORTS FC (formerly FIFA), Madden NFL, and the newly revived College Football franchise, constitutes a formidable economic moat characterized by high recurring revenue, deep user engagement, and exclusive licensing agreements that create nearly insurmountable barriers to entry for competitors. In Fiscal Year 2025, the company generated over $7.35 billion in net bookings, with its "Live Services" model accounting for the vast majority of revenue, effectively transforming the business from a hit-driven product seller to a platform-as-a-service operator managing digital economies.
While the acquisition narrative dominates the immediate outlook, a rigorous analysis of EA’s standalone fundamentals remains essential. Should the deal falter under regulatory pressure—a scenario with non-trivial probability given recent bipartisan scrutiny from US Senators —shareholders will be left holding the equity of a standalone entity. That entity faces its own set of challenges, including player fatigue in non-sports genres, the struggle to successfully port console IP to mobile platforms, and the imperative to execute on a massive projected revenue ramp in Fiscal Year 2028 driven by unreleased titles. This report provides an exhaustive examination of both the merger dynamics and the fundamental business drivers to adjudicate the risk-adjusted return profile of Electronic Arts equity during this interim period.
TRANSFORMATIVE ARBITRAGE PLAY
To understand the valuation floor of Electronic Arts in the event of a deal break, and to appreciate the strategic premium being paid by the PIF-led consortium, one must dissect the company’s operational engine. EA has successfully transitioned from a developer of discrete software units to an operator of perpetual engagement platforms. This transition shields the company from the cyclical volatility typical of the media industry, replacing it with the predictable, albeit slower-growing, cash flows of a subscription-like model.
The bedrock of Electronic Arts’ valuation is its dominance in sports simulation, a dominance secured through a complex web of exclusive licensing rights and accumulated technical debt that prevents competitors from entering the market. The "EA SPORTS" brand is not merely a marketing label but a distinct ecosystem that monopolizes the digital consumption of global sport.
The EA SPORTS FC Transition and Global Football Dominance The most significant strategic risk EA faced in the last decade was the termination of its thirty-year branding partnership with FIFA. Critics and analysts feared that the loss of the "FIFA" moniker would lead to brand confusion and churn among the casual player base. However, the successful transition to EA SPORTS FC demonstrated that the brand equity resided not with the governing body of soccer, but with the game mechanics and the proprietary "Ultimate Team" mode. Management reported that player monetization was up double digits following the rebrand, validating the thesis that the "Official Licenses" for leagues (Premier League, LaLiga, Bundesliga) and clubs (Real Madrid, Manchester City) are far more critical than the name on the box. EA has locked these league rights into long-term exclusives, ensuring that no rival publisher, including potential new entrants backed by FIFA, can offer an authentic simulation product. This creates a defensive moat that secures billions in annual bookings.
American Football: A Two-Pillar Strategy Fiscal Year 2025 saw a massive inflection point in EA’s North American business with the release of College Football 25. For years, Madden NFL was the sole driver of American football revenue. The reintroduction of the college game, navigated through the complex new Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) legal landscape, exceeded all internal and external expectations, contributing to the American Football franchise exceeding $1 billion in net bookings for the fiscal year. This creates a "two-pillar" seasonality for EA in the US. College Football launches in July, capturing back-to-school engagement, while Madden NFL launches in August/September, capturing the start of the professional season. This staggering of releases smooths out the Q2/Q3 revenue curve and increases the "share of wallet" extraction from the same demographic. The concern for investors regarding cannibalization—that players would buy College Football instead of Madden—appears unfounded based on early data, suggesting the Total Addressable Market (TAM) for football simulation has expanded rather than shifted.
The term "video game publisher" is arguably a misnomer for EA; the company is effectively a digital central banker. The "Live Services" revenue stream, which constitutes approximately 73% of total net bookings , is primarily driven by the "Ultimate Team" mechanic.
The Ultimate Team Economy In FC, Madden, and College Football, the "Ultimate Team" mode allows players to build fantasy rosters using digital trading cards. These cards are obtained through gameplay or, more lucratively, through the purchase of "packs" via real-money microtransactions. This mechanism leverages psychological loops similar to gambling, specifically the "variable ratio reinforcement schedule," where the uncertainty of the reward (opening a pack) drives repeated behavior. From a financial perspective, this model generates extremely high-margin revenue. Once the code for a digital athlete item is written, the marginal cost of selling one unit or one million units is effectively zero. This creates immense operating leverage. Furthermore, the "seasonality" of live services—with regular content drops, "Team of the Year" promotions, and holiday events—keeps retention high year-round, reducing the marketing spend required to re-acquire users for the next annual iteration.
Apex Legends and the Shooter Volatility While sports provide stability, the "Respawn" portfolio, specifically Apex Legends, provides the upside—and recently, the drag. Apex Legends is a free-to-play "Battle Royale" shooter that monetizes through cosmetic skins and "Battle Passes." Unlike the annual reset of sports games, Apex is a persistent service. Recent performance metrics indicate a maturation or decline phase for the franchise. Management noted "approximately 5 points of headwind" from Apex Legends in their FY26 outlook. The shooter genre is fiercely competitive, with rivals like Call of Duty (Activision/Microsoft) and Fortnite (Epic Games) constantly vying for attention. EA’s inability to successfully launch a mobile version of Apex Legends—it was launched and then shuttered due to "quality issues"—remains a significant strategic failure. It highlights a broader weakness in Western AAA publishing: the difficulty in translating complex console/PC control schemes to touchscreens, a competency where Asian competitors like Tencent and NetEase excel.
Looking beyond the current portfolio, EA’s standalone valuation depends heavily on its ability to execute on a robust, albeit risky, pipeline of new content. The "June Projections" provided in the merger proxy imply a massive revenue jump in 2028, suggesting management has high confidence in these unreleased projects.
The Sims Project Rene: Platformization The Sims franchise is celebrating its 25th anniversary and continues to deliver double-digit growth. The future strategy involves "Project Rene," the next-generation Sims experience. This is not just a sequel but a platform evolution, likely incorporating multiplayer elements and cross-platform play. The goal is to double the franchise's net bookings over five years. By moving The Sims to a free-to-enter model with heavy monetization of user-generated content (UGC) and expansions, EA aims to replicate the Roblox model within the life-simulation genre. This is a high-execution risk pivot but offers massive upside if it succeeds in democratizing content creation.
Licensed IP: The Marvel Deal To diversify away from sports and owned IP, EA has entered into a multi-title agreement with Marvel. This includes a single-player Iron Man game being developed by Motive Studio and a Black Panther game from Cliffhanger Games. These titles leverage the immense cultural footprint of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Historically, licensed games carry lower gross margins due to royalty payments to the IP holder (Disney/Marvel). However, they come with built-in marketing efficiency. Success here is crucial to fill the void left by the inconsistent release cadence of Star Wars titles. Speaking of Star Wars, the performance of the Jedi franchise (Fallen Order and Survivor) has been a critical pillar for EA's single-player credibility, proving they can deliver narrative-driven hits alongside their service games.
Battlefield: The Re-invention Perhaps the most significant "swing factor" in the pipeline is the rehabilitation of the Battlefield franchise. The launch of Battlefield 2042 was widely considered a critical and commercial disappointment due to technical bugs and design choices that alienated the core fanbase. EA has since restructured the development teams, creating a "connected universe" strategy overseen by Vince Zampella (founder of Respawn). The upcoming Battlefield title is critical; if successful, it restores a third pillar of revenue. If it fails, it may permanently relegate Battlefield to a second-tier franchise below Call of Duty. The aggressive 2028 projections likely bake in a massive success scenario for this IP.
A recurring theme in EA’s strategic overview is the struggle to crack the mobile market with core IP. While FC Mobile has seen record bookings , high-profile failures like Apex Legends Mobile and the cancellation of Battlefield Mobile suggest a systemic issue in the company's mobile development DNA. The acquisition of Glu Mobile and Playdemic was intended to bolster this capability, but the integration has been slow to yield cross-platform hits. In a standalone scenario, fixing mobile execution is the single biggest lever for unlocking value, as mobile remains the largest and fastest-growing segment of the global gaming market.
LICENSING MOAT & LIVE SERVICES
The financial analysis of Electronic Arts must now be viewed through two distinct lenses: the retrospective performance that established the company's baseline value, and the prospective "management projections" that were used to justify the $55 billion acquisition price tag. The disparity between current operational reality and future promises is where the merger premium resides.
Electronic Arts has demonstrated financial resilience, effectively navigating the post-pandemic normalization that crushed many peers in the gaming sector. While top-line growth has been modest, the company’s discipline in cost management and capital allocation has preserved shareholder value.
Fiscal Year 2025 (Ended March 31, 2025)
Net Bookings: The company reported Net Bookings of $7.355 billion for FY25. This figure represents a stabilization rather than aggressive growth, reflecting the cyclical "air pocket" in the release slate between major non-sports titles.
Revenue Mix: The dominance of the EA SPORTS portfolio was the primary driver, with the American Football franchise (Madden + College) delivering over $1 billion in net bookings. This offset the "approximately 5 points of weakness" observed in Apex Legends and the catalog portfolio.
Cash Flow: Net cash provided by operating activities was $2.079 billion for the fiscal year. This strong cash conversion is a hallmark of the business, driven by the favorable working capital dynamics of digital goods—EA collects cash upfront for virtual currency, while the cost of goods sold (server costs, platform fees) is recognized later or is minimal.
Capital Return: In FY25, EA repurchased 17.6 million shares for $2.5 billion. This aggressive buyback activity reduced the share count, artificially boosting Earnings Per Share (EPS) and signaling management's view that the stock was undervalued relative to its intrinsic worth—a view validated by the subsequent $210 buyout offer.
Q2 Fiscal Year 2026 (Ended Sept 30, 2025)
Net Revenue: Reported at $1.839 billion, down from $2.025 billion in the prior year.
Net Bookings: $1.818 billion, a decline of 13% year-over-year.
The "Comp" Problem: The decline creates a negative headline but requires context. The prior year’s Q2 included the launch of College Football 25 (which launched in July of the previous fiscal period in this hypothetical timeline or is being compared to a massive launch spike). The snippet clarifies that the decline was "driven largely by the extraordinary release of College Football 25 in the prior year period". Adjusting for this, Madden NFL 26 grew, and Apex Legends returned to double-digit growth, a positive signal of stabilization.
Crucial to evaluating the fairness of the $210 offer is the "Financial Forecasts" table included in the Definitive Proxy Statement (DEFM14A). These numbers, prepared by EA management and relied upon by Goldman Sachs for their fairness opinion, outline the "standalone" future of the company. They reveal a company expecting a massive inflection in growth in Fiscal Year 2028.
Source: Definitive Proxy Statement (DEFM14A).
Analysis of the Projections:
The 2028 Step-Change: The most striking feature of these projections is the jump in Net Bookings from $8.25 billion in 2027 to $10.0 billion in 2028, a growth of over 21%. Correspondingly, Adjusted EBITDA leaps from $3.0 billion to $4.2 billion.
Underlying Assumptions: This massive discontinuity suggests the scheduled release of multiple blockbuster titles in that window—likely the next mainline Battlefield, the release of Project Rene (Sims), and possibly the Marvel titles (Iron Man, Black Panther).
Credibility Check: Investors must view these outer-year projections with skepticism. In the gaming industry, delays are endemic. Projecting a simultaneous success of multiple unreleased non-sports titles three years out carries significant execution risk. The fact that the Board agreed to sell at a valuation based partially on these numbers suggests they preferred the certainty of cash today over the execution risk of delivering that 2028 "hockey stick" chart.
Offer Price: $210.00 per share.
Total Equity Value: ~$55 Billion.
Implied EV/EBITDA Multiples:
Based on FY26E EBITDA ($2.759B): ~19.9x.
Based on FY27E EBITDA ($3.003B): ~18.3x.
Historical Context: Historically, EA has traded in a range of 12x to 16x forward EBITDA, occasionally spiking to 18x during periods of high growth. The acquisition multiple of ~20x represents a full "control premium," valuing the company at the very top end of its historical trading band. This confirms that shareholders are receiving full value for the business relative to its near-term prospects.
Peer Comparison: Rivals like Ubisoft trade at significantly depressed multiples (evidenced by its low historical EV/EBITDA lows before its own volatility) due to operational struggles. Take-Two Interactive trades at high multiples on future earnings expectations for GTA VI, but currently has negative earnings on a trailing basis due to impairments and Zynga integration costs. EA's exit multiple is robust compared to the sector average.
The LBO is financed through a combination of $36.4 billion in equity commitments from the consortium and $20 billion in debt financing provided by JPMorgan.
Leverage Implication: A $20 billion debt load on a company generating ~$2.7 billion in EBITDA (FY26E) implies a leverage ratio of roughly 7.2x Net Debt/EBITDA at closing. This is extremely aggressive leverage for a cyclical industry. While EA's cash flows are stable, this debt burden will require significant repayment discipline, likely limiting the private company's ability to make large acquisitions in the short term. This high leverage might explain why public market investors would be hesitant to value the standalone company this richly—the public markets generally penalize leverage above 3-4x. The private equity model relies on this leverage to juice returns, a risk public shareholders are now absolved of.
Termination Fees: The merger agreement includes reciprocal termination fees of $1 billion. If the Consortium walks away (e.g., financing failure, though there is no financing condition), they owe EA $1 billion. If EA accepts a superior proposal (a "Go-Shop" scenario, though unlikely given the size), they owe the Consortium $1 billion. This substantial fee structure creates a strong mutual commitment to close.
PREMIUM EXIT VALUATION
The risk profile of Electronic Arts has shifted from operational execution to regulatory adjudication. While macroeconomic trends still influence the business, the primary variable determining the return on investment is now the decision-making process of the US federal government.
The definitive agreement is contingent upon regulatory approval, including clearance from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). This is the single greatest point of failure for the transaction.
Sovereign Wealth Involvement: The Public Investment Fund (PIF) is a sovereign wealth fund chaired by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. While the PIF has invested passively in US companies (including EA previously), a 100% buyout and take-private transaction grants them operational control.
Sensitive Personal Data: Under the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) of 2018, CFIUS has expanded jurisdiction over transactions involving "sensitive personal data" of US citizens. EA maintains accounts for millions of Americans, collecting data that includes names, payment information, behavioral telemetry, and in-game chat logs. Anti-cheat software used in games like Apex Legends and Battlefield often operates at the kernel level of a user's PC, granting deep system access. Regulators may view this access by a foreign state-owned entity as a national security vulnerability.
The Affinity Partners Complication: The inclusion of Affinity Partners, led by Jared Kushner, adds a layer of political volatility. Reports suggest Kushner’s involvement was intended to facilitate approval through Republican circles or a potential Trump administration. However, this has triggered a backlash from Senate Democrats. Senators Richard Blumenthal and Elizabeth Warren have publicly urged CFIUS to scrutinize the deal, explicitly citing concerns about foreign influence and the "revolving door" of political favors. This partisan attention elevates the profile of the review, making a quiet approval less likely.
Critical Technology: The gaming industry is increasingly recognized as a driver of AI and simulation technology. EA's proprietary Frostbite engine and its AI capabilities for player behavior could be classified as "critical technology" under CFIUS purview, further complicating the review.
While less severe than the CFIUS risk, antitrust hurdles remain. The Communications Workers of America (CWA) has raised concerns about the consolidation of the industry and the potential for "interlocking directorates" if PIF/Savvy Games Group executives sit on the boards of multiple competing gaming companies (e.g., if they hold board seats at other publishers via minority stakes). However, given that PIF is primarily a financial investor and does not operate a competing console ecosystem (unlike Microsoft/Sony), traditional horizontal antitrust blockers are weaker here than in the Activision Blizzard acquisition.
Should the deal be blocked, EA stock would revert to trading on its fundamentals.
Gamer Spending Wallets: High inflation and interest rates have squeezed consumer discretionary income. The "player pickiness" trend has led to a bifurcation in the market: massive hits (like College Football) thrive, while mid-tier titles die. EA is relatively insulated, but not immune.
Unionization: The CWA's active opposition to the deal highlights growing labor unrest in the video game sector. A failed deal could embolden unionization efforts within EA's studios, potentially increasing labor costs and disrupting development pipelines.
Technological Disruption: The rapid advancement of Generative AI poses both an opportunity and a threat. While EA plans to use AI to speed up development, the democratization of game creation tools could lower barriers to entry, allowing smaller studios to compete with EA's massive production budgets, potentially eroding their "AAA" moat over the long term.
HIGH REGULATORY RISK
Methodology: We model the future share price based on three discrete outcomes related to the merger. The "High" and "Base" cases are structurally identical due to the capped upside of the cash offer. The "Low" case represents the reversion to standalone fundamentals if the deal is blocked.
Assumptions for Standalone Valuation:
Discount Rate (WACC): 8.5% (Derived from Goldman Sachs fairness opinion inputs ).
Terminal Multiple: 15x EV/EBITDA (Midpoint of historical trading range).
Fundamental Input: We use a discount to Management's "June Projections" for the standalone case to reflect execution risk, specifically haircutting the 2028 revenue jump.
Narrative: The deal passes regulatory review (CFIUS) after a thorough 9-12 month process. No significant concessions are required that would kill the deal economics.
Key Fundamentals: The fundamentals of EA become irrelevant to the public shareholder; the only metric that matters is the $210.00 cash offer.
Share Price Outcome (2026): $210.00.
5-Year Trajectory: The public equity ceases to exist. The 5-year return is effectively the cash received reinvested at the risk-free rate (approx. 4.0%).
Probability: 65%. (While high, the CFIUS risk is material enough to keep this below 80%).
Narrative: CFIUS blocks the deal on national security grounds regarding user data. EA is forced to continue as a standalone public company. Management must execute on the pipeline without the cover of private ownership.
Financial Model Inputs (FY2028):
We assume EA misses the aggressive "June Projection" of $4.2B EBITDA in 2028, achieving a more realistic $3.6 Billion (growing 10% annually from 2026 rather than the projected 21% jump).
Valuation: With the "takeout premium" removed and growth concerns lingering, the multiple compresses to 14x EV/EBITDA.
Calculation:
EBITDA (FY28): $3.6 Billion.
Target EV: $3.6B 14x = $50.4 Billion.
Net Cash (accumulated by FY28): ~$4.0 Billion (assuming continued dividends/buybacks).
Equity Value: $54.4 Billion.
Share Count (reduced by buybacks): ~245 Million.
Implied Share Price (2028): ~$222.00.
Immediate Reaction (2026): If the deal breaks in 2026, the stock likely falls to ~14x FY26 EBITDA ($2.76B). $2.76B 14 = $38.6B EV. Plus Net Cash ~$2B = $40.6B Equity. / 267M shares = ~$152.00.
Probability: 35%.
Deal Close ($210): 0.65 210 = $136.50
Deal Break ($152 Floor): 0.35 152 = $53.20
Blended Target: $189.70
Observation: The current trading price of ~$201 suggests the market is pricing in a significantly higher probability of closing (>85%) than our conservative model, OR the market believes the standalone floor is higher than $152.
ASYMMETRIC DOWNSIDE RISK
| Metric | Score (1-10) | Narrative Analysis |
| Management Alignment | 9 | CEO Andrew Wilson and the C-suite are heavily incentivized to close this transaction. Wilson stands to receive a payout exceeding $100 million from equity acceleration and change-of-control provisions. This "golden parachute" ensures their interests are perfectly aligned with the $210 exit. |
| Revenue Quality | 9 | The "Ultimate Team" revenue stream is the gold standard of digital monetization. It is recurring, high-margin, and exhibits low churn. The reliance on FC and Madden creates a predictable floor for cash flows. |
| Market Position | 10 | EA holds an effective monopoly in simulation sports. The barriers to entry (licensing costs, engine complexity) are insurmountable for new entrants. College Football 25 cemented this dominance. |
| Growth Outlook | 5 | Standalone growth is the weakness. Without the projected 2028 "super-cycle" of releases, organic growth is low-single-digits. The mobile segment remains a drag on growth velocity compared to competitors like Take-Two (Zynga). |
| Financial Health | 8 | Pre-deal, the balance sheet is pristine with a net cash position and strong FCF generation. The post-deal entity will be highly levered (6x-7x), but current shareholders are shielded from this. |
| Business Viability | 10 | The core product (sports video games) has multi-generational cultural relevance. It is "forever IP" that survives technological shifts. |
| Capital Allocation | 8 | Management has been disciplined with buybacks ($2.5B in FY25) and dividends. The decision to sell at an all-time high valuation multiple demonstrates a commitment to crystallizing shareholder value rather than empire-building. |
| Analyst Sentiment | 5 | Wall Street is cautious. While the deal premium is acknowledged, the "Hold" ratings reflect the limited upside (capped at $210) and the binary regulatory risk. There is no "alpha" left in the trade unless you are an arbitrage specialist. |
| Profitability | 8 | Gross margins are expanding as the mix shifts to digital/live services. Management projects EBITDA margins expanding to 42% by 2028 , a hallmark of efficient scale. |
| Track Record | 6 | Mixed. While Sports is a machine, the company has struggled with non-sports execution (Battlefield 2042 launch issues, mobile cancellations). M&A track record is spotty (Glu Mobile integration was underwhelming). |
| OVERALL SCORE | 7.8 | MATURE CASH COW |
Electronic Arts represents a compelling but risk-laden merger arbitrage situation. The investment thesis is no longer about the growth of video games, but about the geopolitical appetite of US regulators.
The Bull Case (Arbitrage): Buying at ~$201 offers a ~4.5% gross return to the $210 closing price. With committed financing from JPMorgan ($20B) and a massive equity check from the PIF ($36B), the financial capacity of the buyer is unquestioned. The reciprocal $1 billion termination fee signals strong mutual commitment. If the deal closes in 9 months, the annualized return beats cash equivalents and most fixed-income instruments.
The Bear Case (Regulatory Break): The CFIUS risk is real and underpriced by the market. The involvement of Affinity Partners (Kushner) has politicized the review process, attracting bipartisan scrutiny that could delay or kill the deal. If the deal breaks, the stock lacks an immediate catalyst to support a $200+ valuation. The "June Projections" relying on a massive 2028 revenue jump look optimistic for a standalone entity with a spotty track record in non-sports development. A break could see the stock re-rate to the $150 range.
Recommendation: This is a trade for risk-tolerant portfolios seeking uncorrelated returns. For long-term fundamental investors, the upside is capped, and the downside is driven by opaque regulatory processes. The prudent move for existing long-term holders may be to sell into the current strength to capture the bulk of the premium, rather than risking a ~25% drawdown for the final 4.5% of gain.
SELL THE NEWS
The price action of EA is now decoupled from broad market indices and technical oscillators. The stock is trading in a tight consolidation band between $200 and $202, acting as a gravitational orbit around the deal price.
Moving Averages: The stock is trading roughly 25% above its 200-day moving average of $160.77. This wide divergence is typical of buyout gaps and serves as a visual representation of the "deal premium." The 200-day MA effectively acts as the "floor" or "break price" target.
Momentum: RSI is neutral (approx. 40-50), indicating the stock is neither overbought nor oversold; it is simply "parked".
Outlook: Expect volatility to effectively vanish, with the stock drifting slowly higher toward $208 as the expected closing date approaches, punctuated only by sharp moves in response to news leaks regarding the CFIUS review process.
PINNED TO DEAL PRICE
View Electronic Arts Inc (EA) stock page
Loading the interactive version of this report…