- Primary Subject: GOALS (Launch Version 1.0)
- Key Update: Sweden's Goals AB studio has officially launched its competitive, free-to-play football alternative to EA FC, featuring a unique procedural player progression system.
- Status: Confirmed
- Last Verified: June 8, 2026
- Quick Answer: GOALS offers decent defensive mechanics but suffers from static attacking AI, limited tactical choices, and heavy pay-to-win elements via low pack drop rates.
GOALS, the multiplayer free-to-play football game developed by Swedish studio Goals AB, is finally here.
The game was available in Alpha for a few months in 2025. After that, developers limed the edges before introducing a beta phase a few days before the official release, which happened on 4th June.
The game was highly anticipated by football fans, especially the ones who wanted an alternative to EA FC, one focused on competition and fair gameplay.
So, did GOALS measure up to the expectations? Or did it fall short of being a viable alternative in the football genre?
The answer to those and many other questions is right below.
A Middle-of-the-Table Gameplay Experience
GOALS is all about gameplay, with "gameplay first" being their main motto. This is not that surprising, as gameplay is the most important thing in a sports game.
While GOALS doesn't have a relegation battle type of gameplay, take it from a Spurs fan, it's also far from being the type of gameplay that will make you fall in love with football games again.
The attacking AI is disappointing. There is a big lack of movement in the final third, as players don't make runs unless manually triggered.
The players' Attacking IQ stat feels like a placebo, as they behave in the same way, whether they have 30 or 95 Attacking IQ.
This makes the attacking much less fluid and more obvious; with players being static, it's easier to track runs or know where the ball is going.
Defense is better, as if you make a mistake, you more often than not are punished for it, being a decent display of skill gap.
However, it's very hard to stop blue or higher-rarity cards with 80 +pace, even if your defender has a higher pace.
It's not that tracking the run for those cards is harder, is that even when you do so, they will just run past you.
Even if you are pressuring them, using your player's physicality to get back the ball, it feels like it doesn't matter.
They will create separation, and you will never see them again.
But this is something that can be fixed by the devs, and isn't necessarily a deal-breaker. However, the animations can definitely be.
It feels like the game has 8-directional movement, even though it has an omnidirectional movement system, with players not moving as freely as you see in other sports titles, such as UFL, EA FC, and even eFootball, GOALS main competition.
There are certain angles you know the opponent won't be able to take the ball from you, and you can exploit it.
This doesn't make the game inherently bad, but it does make it feel way behind the current gen of sports games.
This is mainly due to the gameplay animations not being as fluid as expected. Some of them look quite outdated, to be honest.
Graphically, the game is okay, and while I like the design choices they went with, when compared to other titles in the market, it feels short.
Lack of Modes and Tactical Choices
GOALS offers five game modes: Quickplay, Ranked, Tournaments, Knockout, and Friendly.
All of these are multiplayer modes, with the tournaments mode having an offline option. So, if you are looking for a more single-player career mode experience, GOALS is not that game.
There is a lack of single-player modes, as more ways to play offline would be a great way to ease in new players. Offering users a way to play the game without the stress of competitive gameplay is also important.
While I love the stress that comes with competitive modes, not everyone does, and giving users a way to log in and just enjoy the gameplay with now expctations attached is key to retaining players.
Tactical choices are also lacking. I don't know why I can't have my wingbacks set to attacking, even though that is a big part of my playstyle. Most positions only have the balanced setting, while some have the defending one.
But what if I want my midfield players to be set to attacking? I can't, at least not in all formations, which removes a lot of the creativity and flexibility around tactical choices.
The main focus behind tactical options should be to allow players to play how they see fit. Even if that puts them at a disadvantage because of the game's meta, players should have total control over their tactical presets.
In my opinion, GOALS misses an open goal in that department, as this is something that could easily set them apart from other titles in the industry.
A Bold Progression System
The idea of players who upgrade as you play with them, and that you can't buy from the store is an interesting one.
In practice, you evolve those players and create an affinity for them. In reality, there is no reason to do that with a player that will probably be off your team in a few matches.
Names and faces are important in sports. You want the big names not only because they are the highest rated, but also because you know who they are, what they have done, and the history and mystique surrounding them.
With generic players, that all goes away. I understand the idea, but I think most people won't really care about the generic players, especially early on, when new players are constantly being added to the lineup.
The exchange feature needs to be reworked, has exchaing 10 common players for two other common players makes no sense. Why would I want to give ten 40-50 rated players to get two other 40-50 rated players? It makes no sense, but I think it will be quickly addressed.
Microtransactions Are Present In A Significant Way
Let me start by saying that, with GOALS being a free-to-play game, the presence of microtransactions isn't a shock. However, they are more prevalent than I thought.
The drop rates in packs are abysmal, with players higher than 85 OVR having a below 1% chance of dropping in most packs, and 80 OVR not coming that far behind, at 2.63%.
The main problem comes when there is no transfer market. That makes sense for the idea of getting players from packs and evolving them, instead of just buying the best players from the store.
However, that means you can't get players for specific positions, and that the only way to get players is from packs.
For example, I've got plenty of right wingers, but I desperately need two fullbacks. The only thing I can do is get packs and pray that I will get a fullback.
You can buy packs with in-game currency that you earned by playing games. But to gather enough to buy the best packs, the ones that actually give you uncommon players, it still takes some time.
I'm talking about the green cards; if you are looking for Blue or higher rarity cards, good luck, you will have to grind for them. The main problem is that there is no guarantee that players for the position you need will be in the pack.
Maybe you end up with your fifth green midfielder when you were desperately searching for a centerback. This ends up incentivizing people to buy in-game currency and buy packs.
The more packs you open, the more chances you have of pulling great players, right? So there is definitely a pay-to-win element in GOALS.
That element was felt as soon as the game went live, as 30 minutes into the game launch, I was already facing players with three or more blue cards.
That can be overwhelming for the future of the game. Let's say someone starts playing 2 months from now; they will face teams much better than them.
Maybe not at the start, but a few games in, they will be facing full blue or higher rarity squads. If they want to climb ranked and be the best player they can, spending money on the game will likely be a must then.
This is something that GOALS can fix, and with the community feedback I have read surrounding it, they probably will do so sooner rather than later.
Verdict
GOALS provides an okay gameplay with a lot of room for improvement. However, the lack of game modes, tactical choices, and prominent microtransactions will drive away many players, and also makes it harder to recommend.
The progression system and the use of "default" characters instead of real players are interesting ideas on paper. However, I think the execution lacked, as other aspects of the game make both features feel like more of a problem than a revolutionary solution.
It's still possible to have fun with GOALS, and it will be a good alternative to many desperate for something different.
For me, the game falls short of expectations. I think it will take a good amount of time and a lot of work until GOALS can be seen as a viable alternative to the likes of UFL and eFootball, let alone EA FC.
Stay tuned to RealSport101: The Home of Sports Gaming News, Guides, Leaks, and Reviews.