Which brings us back to the
true problem: EA is not willing to fork over the money to make the game as great as it could be.
Even if MUT didn't exist, EA could still choose to pay that talent the competitive salaries necessary to keep it. They'd still be raking in far more income than would be necessary to afford that, as they always have. Would they be earning as much? Maybe, maybe not.
Now, I'm aware that you'll argue "well why make games if not for a profit?" No one said they couldn't make a profit. The problem is that too many people in charge of where resources are allocated do not actually give a crap about the art. It is not impossible to have people in charge of the bottom line who also care deeply enough about the art to sacrifice a bit to make a better product. The old argument goes if you make the product as great as possible, you'll recoup your investment from more sales. I see no reason why that couldn't be true, ESPECIALLY considering there is nearly zero competition (the only competition is from other sports games; nearly zero from NFL games).
Of course, we could always bring up the tired argument about what would happen if there were more true competition, but I don't think that's necessary. IF the people at the top cared more about the product, in this idealistic fantasy world I'm positing, we wouldn't have this problem. Because they'd sacrifice a little bit of their disgusting profits to make the art better. And before you say "well you're dreaming about an unrealistic scenario in which the people making the most money off of the product actually care about it," the entire premise of the thread is hinting at an idealistic fantasy world in which MUT didn't exist. *shrugs*