46 US House Democrats Urge FTC to Thoroughly Review Saudi PIF and Silver Lake Consortium Bid to Take EA Private

A coalition of 46 members of the United States Congress is escalating pressure on federal regulators to closely scrutinize the proposed buyout that would take Electronic Arts private, a deal led by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, alongside private equity firms Silver Lake and Affinity Partners. While EA has already secured shareholder approval, the transaction still requires clearance from global regulators, including the United States Federal Trade Commission, and lawmakers are now publicly urging the FTC to treat the deal as a high stakes labor market and competition case, not just a standard merger review.

In an open letter addressed to FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, the lawmakers say they have serious concerns about the proposed acquisition and urge the Commission to thoroughly review the transaction under the FTC’s authority. The letter is signed by 46 House Democrats led by Labor Caucus co chairs Steven Horsford, Debbie Dingell, Mark Pocan, and Donald Norcross.

The lawmakers frame their argument around worker impact and labor market concentration at a time when the game industry is already dealing with instability and 10,000s of job losses. They point to EA’s own role in layoffs, and call out the widening gap between executive compensation and employee outcomes as a signal that labor risks should be treated as a core part of the FTC’s analysis. The letter specifically highlights reporting that EA CEO Andrew Wilson earned 260 times more than the median EA worker.

One of the letter’s most concrete risk flags is the debt structure. The lawmakers say the buyout would involve EA taking on 20B$ in debt, which they argue creates strong incentives for the acquiring firms to pursue further cost cutting measures. In plain terms, their position is that heavy leverage tends to push aggressive post deal restructuring, which can translate into layoffs, offshoring, studio closures, or other reductions that hit workers first.

Beyond labor impacts, the letter raises competition concerns tied to the scale of cross ownership across sports, sports related talent, and sports related video game business lines, warning this structure could enable self preferencing and anticompetitive coordination. The lawmakers argue that such dynamics could restrict worker mobility and reduce bargaining power across the broader industry, turning a single transaction into a wider pressure point for wage setting and career movement.

The lawmakers also signal that this deal could fall within the FTC’s modern enforcement posture that considers mergers and acquisitions through a labor lens, including whether transactions suppress wages, reduce labor demand, or give dominant firms more leverage over workers. They close by urging the FTC to investigate EA’s wage setting power, the likelihood of post transaction layoffs, labor market concentration across relevant locations and roles, and the role cross ownership could play in shaping labor outcomes.

Outside of Washington, the deal is also drawing creative and cultural scrutiny. Critics have pointed to concerns about whether external ownership and influence could shape content decisions, even as EA maintains that it would retain creative control. Some players have cited prior examples of Saudi Arabia connected influence debates in gaming, including a recent discussion around Fatal Fury that reignited broader concerns about how ownership relationships can intersect with character and content decisions.

For now, the key point is that this is still in the regulatory phase. The FTC has not announced an outcome, and this letter does not guarantee the Commission will challenge the transaction. But it materially raises the political heat around the review, and it reinforces that labor impact and cross ownership structure will be central narratives as regulators decide whether to clear the deal, impose conditions, or fight it.

What is your take on this buyout: should the FTC prioritize worker impact and debt driven layoff risk in the same way it prioritizes traditional competition analysis, or keep the review narrower?