Experience the next generation of football gaming right on your mobile device!
XTEN LIMITEDFrom our automated analysis, 11 Oct 2026. Every label links to its evidence in the full report below.
This analysis describes version 16.0.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-11 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 16.1.0, updated 2026-10-14.
The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 16.0.0, not the version now listed on the store.
The developer’s release notes for the newer versions, where we hold them, are in Versions and dates analysed.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
Experience the next generation of football gaming right on your mobile device! UFL is the soccer simulation that puts your talent to the ultimate test. It's time to build your legacy from the ground up and challenge players globally in a fair, engaging, and competitive environment.
Build your football club: start your journey, assemble your dream top eleven squad, and implement a strategy that rewards pure football games knowledge. UFL is designed for fresh, skill-rewarding gameplay where the pro sport manager and player win. Experience the most authentic mobile gameplay.
ENTER THE UFL LEGACY: Play with the confidence of a global title.
Take total control of your club's destiny. Recruit players from a massive database, develop unique training programs, and craft complex formations. Every decision you make impacts your team's chemistry and performance in the global league.…
From the developer’s store description.
For developers and the curious
The evidence, sources, measurements and versions behind every label above.
Findings that met the published evidence standard.
Aggressive ad load: raised by 104 distinct reviewers (7.2% of 1450 reviews scanned)
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
Specific evidence of a useful property, within the stated scope.
The developer's store data-safety disclosure states that data deletion can be requested; we have not seen a deletion control in the app's own text
The developer's data-safety disclosure on the store states that users can request deletion of their data, or the app's own text offers a way to delete the account. This restates what the developer declares; it is not a test of whether deletion works. Apple publishes no equivalent disclosure, so on an Apple-only listing only the app's own text can support it.
Open observations that have not cleared the evidence bar.
Pay to progress: raised by 6 distinct reviewers (0.4% of 1450 reviews scanned)
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
Advancement or competition is gated behind spending money rather than playing.
1,450 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
Raised by 104 distinct reviewers — 7.2% of the 1,450 reviews scanned on this store leg (Google Play).
Later edit: they've put forced ads guys, that's a no no, taking back one star. ...They have released this mobile game with obvious errors and text bugs and so on. A long way to go until they will make the gameplay smooth like efootball…
Can you guys stop showing ads. I don't know any mobile football game that shows ads. And I don't know why you're showing me sexualised/porn ads. I don't think that has any correlation with a football game especially since CHILDREN PLAY…
too much ad,
UFL is easily one of the most exciting football games available today, standing out with its commitment to a true "Fair to Play" model where win-or-lose outcomes rely strictly on tactical skill, smooth passing mechanics, and sharp…
its a really good game but please make events and also make the picth bigger and the players to run a little faster. but thanks for not making it too much p2w like fc mobile. if u all make the gameplay realistic and add other new things…
A sampled review illustrates one person’s experience. It does not establish a finding on its own.
Supporting measurements. They are not a complete list of possible harms or positives. “Not assessed” means we could not measure it — never zero, never a pass.
No package has been scanned for this app, so nothing is published about what it ships. That is an absence of evidence, not a finding.
Measurement vocabulary 1.4 · how these are measured
This analysis describes version 16.0.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-11 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 16.1.0, updated 2026-10-14.
The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 16.0.0, not the version now listed on the store.
Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:
No release notes were provided for this version.
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
No release notes were provided for this version.
No release notes were provided for this version.
No release notes were provided for this version.
Appworthy
ufl-google-com-xten-uflAssessed 2026-10-11 from 1,450 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
What the stores publish. Store ratings are the stores’ numbers, not Appworthy’s, and are never averaged across stores.
This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Write to [email protected], or use the form. Name the finding, the app version and the evidence that needs correcting. Factual corrections are free and never depend on buying anything.