POST/HYPESubscribe →
Posthype / Analysis
// Analysis

GameSquare paid 0.69x revenue for Click Management — the multiple the roll-up actually clears

Representation deals almost never close with a public price, so agency owners price their books off press-release hype instead of comps. The one Nasdaq filing that shows the math puts a profitable talent firm at less than a year's revenue — the number that should anchor every exit conversation.

Photo: Daniel Moyle / Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

On September 11, 2025, GameSquare Holdings agreed to buy Click Management, an Australia-founded talent firm with a US presence, for $8.5 million in cash plus up to $3.0 million in earn-outs. Click closed over 545 commercial deals globally in 2024, on $12.4 million of revenue, with a roster of 75 active talent. The base case is straightforward: $8.5M against $12.4M is 0.69x trailing revenue. Fold in the full earn-out and the price reaches $11.5M, or 0.93x — still under a single year's revenue.

The deal, in four numbersGameSquare acquisition disclosure, Sept 11, 2025
$8.5M
Base price (cash)
$12.4M
Click 2024 revenue
0.69x
Revenue multiple
~7x
Forward pro-forma EBITDA

That number matters because the math is rarely visible. GameSquare trades on the Nasdaq under GAME, so the consideration sits in a public disclosure rather than behind the “terms were not disclosed” line that covers nearly every other representation deal. When Whalar bought Sixteenth in October 2024 to assemble a 300-talent management arm, RockWater's writeup recorded the price as “No deal details were disclosed.” The Click deal is the rare public comp, and it lands well below what the volume of creator-economy acquisition headlines implies a talent book is worth.

The structure, and where the price actually sits

GameSquare is paying $4.5 million in cash at close and $4.0 million within 60 days of December 31, 2025, with up to an additional $3.0 million in earn-out tied to performance targets over the next two calendar years. The $8.5 million of near-certain cash is the figure to anchor on: it is contractually owed regardless of how the roster performs after close. The $3.0 million earn-out depends on the roster hitting targets, and even if every one is hit it only lifts the multiple to 0.93x revenue. For an owner reading their own term sheet, the base cash is the real price and the earn-out is upside they still have to deliver to collect.

How the $11.5M breaks downAmountMultiple
Cash at close$4.5M
Deferred (within 60 days of Dec 31, 2025)$4.0M
Base subtotal$8.5M0.69x
Earn-out (2 yrs, performance)up to $3.0M
Max total$11.5M0.93x

Why a profitable agency clears under 1x revenue

The mechanism behind the low revenue multiple is margin. Representation is a pass-through-heavy business — the revenue line is gross billings the agency books, but most of the value flows to the creator, and the firm keeps a commission. GameSquare's own guidance shows the spread: it expects Click to contribute roughly $14.5 million of annualized pro-forma revenue and approximately $1.2 million of annualized pro-forma EBITDA in the second half of 2025. That is a margin near 8 percent on the forward revenue base, and around 10 percent measured against Click's 2024 top line.

A business that converts roughly ten cents of every revenue dollar into earnings gets priced on those earnings rather than on the billings that pass through it. Against the $8.5 million base, $1.2 million of forward EBITDA is roughly 7.1x. That read needs a label: the only profitability figure GameSquare disclosed is the forward pro-forma number, and no trailing 2024 EBITDA was published, so the clean way to state it is “roughly 7x forward pro-forma EBITDA,” not a trailing multiple. The two multiples describe the same deal from opposite ends — 0.69x revenue and about 7x EBITDA are the same price, because a ~10 percent margin is the conversion factor between them.

A roster of 75 creators and 545 closed deals is a real, working business, and it still exited for less than one year's revenue.

The comps say the floor, and Click is sitting on it

One deal does not set a market, but the published benchmarks put the same band around it. New Economies' data, reported by NetInfluencer, has talent-management firms trading at 4.0x to 8.0x EBITDA, with a median of 6.0x — below agencies (median 7.1x) and well below media companies (median 11.6x). On a revenue basis, DealStream's rule-of-thumb for talent agencies runs from 0.5x to 2.5x of trailing revenue. Click's 0.69x revenue and ~7x forward EBITDA land at the bottom of the revenue band and near the median of the EBITDA band — the price a profitable but low-margin book commands.

EBITDA multiple by categoryRangeMedian
Talent management4.0–8.0x6.0x
Agencies5.3–9.2x7.1x
Media8.0–17.0x11.6x
Click (forward, this deal)~7x0.69x rev

For an agency owner, the structural read is that buyers in this category pay for earnings power, and a revenue dollar of representation carries little of it. The roll-up is active — Night raised $70 million in February 2026 to keep acquiring creator-culture businesses after folding in LFM Management, The Roost, and Experiential Supply Co., and creator-economy M&A volume rose from 69 deals in 2024 to 81 in 2025, a 17.4 percent increase. That added competition sets the clearing price rather than lifting the multiple a book commands, and the one deal with public math puts that price under 1x revenue. An owner modeling an exit should start from the $8.5 million Click cleared on $12.4 million and adjust for margin, which is the only lever that moves a representation book above the floor.

// The Tuesday Brief

Get this in your inbox

/ /
Filed by Elliot Padfield · Sources: GameSquare Holdings acquisition disclosure (Sept 11, 2025, PRNewswire/StockTitan); New Economies / NetInfluencer M&A data; DealStream; RockWater; Tubefilter. Multiples are Posthype arithmetic off disclosed figures; the EBITDA multiple is forward pro-forma — no trailing 2024 EBITDA was disclosed.
EPElliot Padfield
Elliot Padfield
Co-founder, Influship

Elliot is a co-founder of Influship, the creator-intelligence platform whose dataset powers Posthype's research. He writes about the business of influence from the data side — campaign economics, attribution, and the numbers that don't make the deck — drawing on a background in data science and marketing technology.

More from Elliot Padfield

More in Analysis

All in Analysis
Money

OnlyFans paid one owner $497M last year — more than its bottom ~397,000 creators earned combined

OnlyFans markets an 80% creator split, but its audited 2024 filing routed $497M to one owner — about what 397,000 average creator accounts earned all year.

By Elliot Padfield 3 min
Platforms

Roblox raised its DevEx rate 42% the week it cut $950M from bookings

Roblox cut 2026 bookings guidance by ~$950M to $7.33–$7.6B, then hiked the DevEx rate 42% on the same call — but only for verified-18+ US spend in R15 games.

By Brandon Huang 4 min
Creator Brands

Coty paid $600M for half of Kylie Cosmetics — then its filings put revenue at a third of the public figure

Coty’s 8-K pegged Kylie Cosmetics at $177M in trailing revenue; months later its filings let Forbes reset 2018 sales to ~$125M against the ~$360M the family had promoted — the gap a public-company audit forced open.

By Elliot Padfield 4 min