EA CEO Andrew Wilson’s 2026 pay may have been much larger than previously thought
EA chief executive Andrew Wilson’s remuneration for the 2026 financial year may have been substantially higher than the roughly $39m previously reported. A different accounting measure, “compensation actually paid”, puts the figure at about $77m by valuing stock awards at their year-end price, highlighting the continuing debate over how executive pay should be measured.
EA’s reported total combined salary, bonuses and earned stock using a starting share price below $150, while the alternative calculation uses an end-of-year price of $202. The latter method is disputed by companies but supported by the US SEC as closer to an executive’s eventual value from stock awards; Game File also reported median EA employee pay of $127,000, following layoffs at Battlefield 6 studios. Public disclosures may end after EA’s acquisition by Silver Lake, Affinity Partners and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.
- Alternative accounting values Wilson’s 2026 pay at about $77m.
- EA previously reported a roughly $39m package.
- The gap chiefly reflects different stock valuation methods.
New here? Start with this
Electronic Arts, usually called EA, is a US video game company behind series such as Battlefield and EA Sports FC. Andrew Wilson is its chief executive, and his pay includes salary, bonuses and awards of company shares.
Companies can report the value of share awards in different ways. One measure values them when granted, while “compensation actually paid” recalculates their value using the share price at the end of the financial year, so the figures can differ greatly.
Executive pay disclosures also draw attention to the gap between senior leaders’ compensation and typical employee pay, particularly when a company is making job cuts. EA’s planned change in ownership may also affect how much pay information it publishes in future.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The reported figure of roughly $39m reflects the fair market value of stock awards at the grant date, which is the appropriate accounting principle for measuring compensation awarded. Using the starting share price maintains consistency with how compensation decisions are actually made and authorised by shareholders, ensures comparability across years and companies, and avoids introducing artificial volatility from market movements beyond executive control.
The case against
The alternative $77m figure reveals the actual economic value realised by the executive, which is what genuinely matters to shareholders evaluating compensation. Using year-end share price prevents understatement through accounting technicalities and reflects the real benefit the CEO obtained from stock awards. The SEC's preference for this method recognises that the true cost to shareholders and gain to the executive is the actual realisable value, not an arbitrary starting price disconnected from real outcomes.