DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Top Eleven Be a Soccer Manager
Nordeus · Games

What’s the catch? Multiple ad networks bundled — measured, backed by SDKs in the app package.

Analyzed automatically from 6 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.

2 on the catch list · analyzedConfidence: High6 signal sources2,487 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-06
 Which version this describes

App Store

This analysis describes version 27.6 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 27.6, updated 2026-09-30.

Google Play

This analysis describes version 27.6 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 27.6, updated 2026-09-29.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

The catch list 2

Charges we publish at a strength we stand behind: measured from an artefact, agreed by independent sources, or reported by enough users to clear that charge's own published bar.

Multiple ad networks bundled
Measuredfrom SDKs in the app packageartefact 94c376fa3535…
The package embeds several distinct advertising or mediation SDKs — a stack built for ad volume, not for a single house ad.
What we saw: Bundles 16 distinct ad networks / mediation SDKs: Amazon Publisher Services, AppLovin MAX, BidMachine, Chartboost and 12 more
Reported by users: Pay to progress
Reported by 49 usersReported by users, not measured — nothing we can inspect could show this either wayview evidence
Advancement or competition is gated behind spending money rather than playing.
What we saw: Raised by 49 distinct reviewers — 2.5% of the 1,966 reviews scanned on this store leg (Google Play).

Positive evidence 1

Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.

Developer says data deletion can be requested
Measuredfrom the store listingview evidence
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.
What we saw: 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

One source only — shown, not confirmed 1

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.

Reported by users: Aggressive ad load
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
What we saw: Aggressive ad load: raised by 20 distinct reviewers (1.0% of 1966 reviews scanned)

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 football management game! ⚽ But it would be much better with full 3D matches, player control, better matchmaking, more realistic AI, national team mode, co-op with friends, and a proper manager career mode. Please also make it less…

4★ · Google Play · 2026-10-05

pay to win

2★ · Google Play · 2026-10-05

worst game ever. Only exists to get money out of you. Its incredibly monitized and pay to win. not enough ability to play free to play. players will also randomly lose loada of their overall at the end of a season, so there is no point in…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-10-04

Aggressive ad load

fun play game , little strategy. should make more strategic, free game plan making mechanism . and must balance it's economy pricing, consumables. too much ad watching system is not good .

4★ · Google Play · 2026-10-05

Pushing BS Agenda — The game and concept of it is super cool and a great game. The problem lie within the game itself such as they shove buying extra in the game with real money. I had no problem with it because you decline to not spend…

1★ · App Store · 2026-09-07

Very good game — This is probably the best football managing game I think. The thing is there is to much ads. You need to watch adds to suceed.

5★ · App Store · 2026-07-20

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 What this app sells

From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.

One-off packs10
Special PackagePack$4.99
Token Package (80 tokens)Pack$9.99
Token Package (14 tokens)Pack$1.99
Special PackagePack$9.99
Token Package (37 tokens)Pack$4.99
Special PackagePack$1.99
Token PackagePack$9.99
Token Package (176 tokens)Pack$19.99
Token PackagePack$1.99
Special PackagePack$19.99
This list is cut off. Apple shows at most 10 in-app purchases, and this app is at the limit — so it very likely sells more than we can see.
Google Play doesn’t publish per-purchase prices, so this list covers the other store only.

How the automated analysis works

Automated, corroborated, and never human-reviewed without a person.

This assessment is produced automatically. Six independent signals are read — user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, 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.

 Not yet human-reviewed

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.

 How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-06 Version analyzed: 27.6 (App Store), 27.6 (Google Play)6 independent signals2,487 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure.