Electronic Arts Shareholders Approve $55 Billion Saudi PIF-Led Takeover: What Happens Next as EA Moves Toward Going Private

December 25, 2025 — Electronic Arts (EA), one of the world’s largest videogame publishers, is now formally on the path to leaving the public markets after shareholders approved a $55 billion, all-cash take-private deal led by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF). With the internal vote cleared, the acquisition’s next—and most consequential—phase is regulatory review, a step that will determine whether the blockbuster transaction can actually close. ^[1]

News coverage on December 25 has centered on the same key question: after shareholders overwhelmingly said “yes,” will regulators in the United States and other major markets sign off on a deal that would place one of gaming’s most influential companies under the control of a foreign sovereign wealth fund? ^[2]

Shareholders’ vote: a landslide that removes the final internal hurdle

EA’s shareholder approval was not close. In a Form 8‑K detailing the special meeting vote, the company reported:

For: 201,459,396
Against: 1,915,837
Abstain: 90,331 ^[3]

The same filing shows shareholders also backed (on an advisory, non-binding basis) merger-related executive compensation arrangements, and that an adjournment proposal was unnecessary because enough votes were already secured to approve the merger agreement. ^[4]

While the vote took place earlier in the week, December 25 reporting has framed the outcome as the decisive corporate checkpoint—essentially moving the deal from “expected” to “procedurally unstoppable,” at least from the company’s side. ^[5]

The deal in plain terms: $210 per share, $55 billion enterprise value

EA and the investor consortium first announced the agreement in late September. The terms remain unchanged:

Price:$210 per share in cash for EA stockholders ^[6]
Premium:25% over EA’s “unaffected” closing price on September 25, 2025 ^[7]
Scale: Widely described as a record-setting or among the largest leveraged buyouts, particularly for a videogame company ^[8]

EA’s catalog includes franchises that dominate sports and live-service gaming—EA SPORTS FC, Madden NFL, Apex Legends, The Sims, and Battlefield among them—making the transaction one of the most significant ownership changes in videogame history. ^[9]

Who’s buying EA—and who will control it?

The buyer group is led by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), alongside Silver Lake and Affinity Partners. ^[10]

In its announcement, EA said PIF will roll over its existing 9.9% stake in the company as part of the transaction. ^[11]

December 25 coverage has also highlighted the expected post-deal control structure: PIF is projected to hold roughly 93.4% of EA if the acquisition closes, putting strategic control firmly with the Saudi sovereign wealth fund (including through PIF’s additional relationships and holdings). ^[12]

That majority ownership point matters because it is likely to shape both the regulatory scrutiny and the broader debate over what “creative independence” means when a global entertainment platform becomes majority-owned by a state-backed investment fund.

How the takeover is financed: $36 billion equity + $20 billion debt

One reason the acquisition has drawn intense attention far beyond gaming is the financing structure.

Reuters previously reported the consortium is buying EA using a mix that includes $36 billion in cash/equity (including equity already held by PIF) and $20 billion in debt financing arranged by JPMorgan. ^[13]

EA’s own announcement likewise described the transaction as an all-cash take-private and emphasized the consortium’s committed capital and sector networks across gaming, entertainment, and sports. ^[14]

Why does the leverage matter? In any take-private deal, the added debt can increase pressure to prioritize predictable cash flows and cost discipline—an issue that resonates in gaming, where major releases can take years and hit-or-miss outcomes are common.

The biggest question now: regulatory approval

With shareholders’ approval in hand, the next step is not another board meeting—it’s the regulatory process.

Multiple reports published or recirculated on December 25 describe the deal as now entering U.S. regulatory review, where authorities will decide whether the transaction can proceed. ^[15]

Why regulators may look closely at this one

This acquisition has several features that can trigger heightened review:

Foreign sovereign wealth fund involvement — PIF is Saudi Arabia’s state-backed investment vehicle, and the deal would put a major U.S.-based publisher under its effective control. ^[16]
National security sensitivities — Major foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies can face national-security review, and AP’s earlier coverage explicitly flagged that dynamic. ^[17]
Scale and market impact — EA is not a niche studio; it is a central platform in sports gaming and live services globally, which can raise questions from competition and technology regulators depending on jurisdiction.

This is why December 25 reporting has increasingly framed “shareholder approval” as the easy part, with the regulatory track as the true gatekeeper.

EA’s message to players and employees: leadership stays, headquarters stays

One consistent element across official statements and coverage is continuity—at least on paper.

Reuters reported that EA is expected to remain in Redwood City, California, and that CEO Andrew Wilson is expected to remain in charge following the deal. ^[18]

EA’s own announcement positioned the acquisition as a way to “accelerate innovation and growth” and framed the buyout as recognition of EA’s teams and IP, with Wilson emphasizing future opportunities across entertainment, sports, and technology. ^[19]

That message—stability in leadership and location—appears designed to reduce uncertainty for developers, partners (including sports leagues and licensors), and the broader marketplace as the transaction moves into a long review period.

Saudi Arabia’s bigger gaming strategy—and why EA is a prize asset

It’s difficult to understand this deal without the broader context: Saudi Arabia has spent years investing heavily in global entertainment, sports, esports, and videogames as part of economic diversification plans.

Reuters has described the EA acquisition as aligned with Saudi Vision 2030 ambitions, and has reported that PIF aims to become a major global force in games and esports—an effort supported by large investments through its gaming vehicle(s), including Savvy Games Group. ^[20]

The Washington Post similarly characterized Saudi Arabia’s push into gaming and esports as a strategic investment drive tied to diversification and global influence—while also noting persistent criticism tied to human rights concerns. ^[21]

From a pure business standpoint, EA offers what sovereign investors tend to value: global brands, recurring revenue from live services and sports franchises, and a pipeline capable of producing blockbuster releases over many years.

Lawsuits and shareholder scrutiny: a parallel track

Beyond regulators, deals of this size often attract litigation and legal scrutiny, and EA has already acknowledged that reality.

In a separate filing discussing the transaction process, EA said purported stockholders filed lawsuits and sent demand letters alleging, among other things, that material information was omitted from the definitive proxy statement. EA said it believes the claims are without merit, but made supplemental disclosures to reduce the risk that litigation could delay the merger. ^[22]

This legal backdrop doesn’t necessarily derail a transaction of this magnitude—but it can add friction, paperwork, and delay, especially if plaintiffs seek injunctions or expanded disclosures.

What this could mean for EA’s games: less quarterly pressure, but more leverage pressure

December 25 business coverage has presented a classic take-private tradeoff.

On one hand, taking EA private could reduce the relentless quarterly earnings spotlight that public companies face. One December 25 report framed the buyout as a “turning point” that could let developers focus on making games without constant public-market pressure. ^[23]

On the other hand, leveraged buyouts can introduce a different kind of pressure: the need to service debt and deliver steady performance over time.

For players, the practical implications may take months—or years—to become visible. Most live-service plans, licensing relationships (sports leagues), and major release roadmaps are set far in advance. But ownership changes can influence priorities such as:

live-service monetization intensity
studio portfolio decisions (investment vs. consolidation)
geographic expansion and partnerships
long-term risk appetite for new IP

EA and the consortium have emphasized continuity and growth. The market—and regulators—will judge whether those commitments are compatible with the financial structure and governance reality of the deal.

The market signal to watch on Dec. 25: EA shares vs. the $210 offer price

A simple indicator of confidence is the gap between EA’s trading price and the $210 takeout price.

On December 25 coverage, outlets noted EA shares trading close to—but still below—the deal price, reflecting investor belief the transaction is likely but not guaranteed until regulators sign off. ^[24]

What happens next: the timeline everyone is watching

Here are the next milestones that matter most:

Regulatory filings and reviews in the U.S. and other jurisdictions
Potential remedies or conditions if regulators raise competition or national-security concerns
Deal closing window — Reuters has reported the transaction is expected to close in EA’s first quarter of fiscal 2027, subject to approvals. ^[25]

Until those steps are complete, EA remains a publicly traded company operating under a signed merger agreement—an in-between state that can last many months in mega-deals of this scale.

Bottom line (as of Dec. 25, 2025): EA shareholders have delivered an overwhelming approval of the $55 billion Saudi PIF-led takeover, officially sending the transaction into the hands of regulators. The vote is historic, but the outcome is not final—because in a deal this large, the real finish line is clearance from governments, not the ballot box. ^[26]