No, addicted to superficiality refers to one of the aspects of football that FIFA is simulating. It's fairly clearly what is said by the quote. I didn't misquote, I didn't misunderstand. The writer (debatably) considers it to be a brilliant simulation of football, but not just that, a brilliant simulation of football's addiction to superficiality.
Tricky one, but I don't know how subjective the concept of simulation actually is. I think the definition is weakened hugely by aspertions that FIFA is a simulation though.
There are some games which could be accurately defined as simulations, like the top end racing sims and flight sims. FIFA can never reach that level of simulation because, while flying a plane or racing a car is a realistic concept, having a vague control over the minds of a football team is not.
Where you could fairly accurately define and judge two racing simulators against eachother, you can't with football games because certain questions aren't really answerable. You can't, for instance, give an objective answer to how much control we should have over events and how much control play stats should. Nor can you give a good answer to how FIFA should scale itself down to 6 minute halves.
With some areas though, I think you can be completely objective in judgement. FIFA's motion physics simply aren't realistic, or even close. For me, a simulation would have a reasonable simulation of each area of the sport, and a consistent philosophy on how the subjective design questions are answered.
In my mind, that is a definition with some level of objectivity, and that's what I hold any sports game to. In the case of these reviewers stating that FIFA is a simulation, we have no idea what they mean, and I sincerely doubt they do either. For that reason, while yes, perhaps I can't say he's wrong because our definitions differ, he shouldn't actually write in the first place.
