We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 4.14.45 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.14.45, updated 2026-10-01.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.
What reviewers said
Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.
Pay to progress
Great game — I think the game is super fun. I don’t think there are any problems to this game. A lot of people say it is pay to win but I don’t think that’s true because I started out with an 84 rated team and got it to 100 in about 2…
Good game, but could be better — It’s a great game, but matches take a while. Like it takes a whole month to do a season.. that’s a bit too long. Instead of waiting 24 hours per match, I suggest it should be 8 or 12. Also some things are…
Good game can be better — I have been playing for 4 years and still the computer cannot put players in the correct position whenever I have a empty lineup and can’t finish it, like how dumb is that can y’all fix that’s like basic & also…
Aggressive ad load
Too many ads — Too many unnecessary ads.
Bad game — It has to many ads that’s crazy I can’t play I have to watch like 5 minutos at ads
New update has way too many ads — I’ve played this game for years and it’s always a game I come back to for a sports manager sim. But the new update makes it unbearable with the ads. Every time I click on something it’s a 30 second add…
How the automated analysis works
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.
Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.