Licensing Is Hard, But That Excuse Falls Apart When SCI Did More With Less

Licensing Is Hard, But That Excuse Falls Apart When SCI Did More With Less

EA or SCI can say boxing licensing is complicated. That part is believable. Boxing does not work like the NFL, NBA, UFC, or FIFA-style licensing where one league, one union, or one major governing structure can unlock a huge group of athletes. Boxing is fragmented. You have active boxers, retired boxers, estates, promoters, managers, sanctioning bodies, trainers, brands, venues, and sometimes rival business relationships.

But “licensing is hard” cannot be used as a blanket excuse when Steel City Interactive, a smaller independent studio, secured a larger boxing roster than EA did with Fight Night Champion.

EA’s own page for Fight Night Champion says the game featured over 50 licensed boxers. (Electronic Arts Inc.) SCI’s own Undisputed roster page says it has over 100 boxers and promotes it as “The Greatest Roster of All Time.” (playundisputed.com) That means even by official public numbers, SCI had roughly double EA’s licensed boxer count, and possibly more depending on announced, added, or contracted boxers over time.

That is the contradiction.

EA is not a small company. EA reported about $7.5 billion in GAAP net revenue in fiscal year 2025. (Electronic Arts) SCI, by contrast, describes itself as an independent studio founded in 2020 to create Undisputed. (steelcityinteractive.co.uk) So how can a multi-billion-dollar company use licensing difficulty as a major shield when a newer, smaller studio managed to build the bigger licensed roster?

The answer is simple: licensing was hard, but it was not impossible.

What EA really should say is:

“We did not prioritize boxing licensing enough.”
“We did not see enough return on investment.”
“We did not want to chase every boxer individually.”
“We were not committed to building the deepest boxing roster possible.”

That would be more honest than hiding behind “licensing is hard.”

And SCI cannot hide behind it either. SCI used the roster as one of its biggest selling points. Their own marketing leans on having more licensed boxers than ever before. So once they proved they could get names, the conversation changes. The issue is no longer just, “Can you license boxers?” The issue becomes:

What did you do with those licenses?

Because a licensed boxer is not just a name and a face scan. Boxing fans want the boxer represented properly. They want the stance, rhythm, defense, punch selection, footwork, tendencies, clinch behavior, inside fighting, ring IQ, stamina style, durability, weaknesses, and personality. If the boxer does not fight like himself, then the license is being used as decoration.

So the real criticism is this:

You Cannot Use Licensing As The Excuse While Also Selling The Game On Licensing

EA had money, brand power, sports-game infrastructure, and years of experience. SCI had less money, less history, and less corporate power, yet still built a larger licensed roster than Fight Night Champion. That does not mean licensing is easy. It means licensing cannot be the main excuse for why boxing games are shallow, incomplete, or missing major names and eras.

The hard truth is this:

Boxing licensing is difficult, but commitment separates an excuse from a strategy.

If SCI could get over 100 boxers, then EA could have done more.
If EA had the money and industry machine, then EA had no real excuse to stop at “licensing is hard.”
And if SCI could secure the names, then SCI has no excuse for not making those boxers feel, move, fight, and behave like real boxers.

The roster proves the door was open.
The problem was never just licensing.
The problem was priority, vision, budget, data, execution, and respect for boxing.