Sean Gares Drops a Bombshell: Legal Risks Behind VALORANT’s Explosive Match-Fixing and Corruption Allegations

Introduction

On May 16, 2025, esports personality Sean Gares may have turned the VALORANT universe upside down when he posted a video to his X.com account. Gares’s post alleged that professional VALORANT players may have been compensated to intentionally throw matches. Though Gares did not name names, his post revived long-held fears of apparent match-fixing, gambling, and blackmail in the Valorant universe. Gares also warned his followers of instances where players were blackmailed post-bribery to ensure their continued compliance.

Just days later, fellow gaming personality Tyson Ngo also addressed the growing controversy around Valorant, describing the community as an “absolutely terrible place.” Riot Games, Valorant’s publisher, responded to the allegations through its Esports Rules and Compliance team, reaffirming its commitment to competitive integrity and noting that its investigation was already underway.

As competitive gaming continues to mature into a multi-billion-dollar global sports industry, the reputational and financial stakes have never been higher. If these allegations of match-fixing are true, they threaten to undermine sponsorship obligations, trigger civil liability, and attract regulatory scrutiny.

The Growing Issue of Match-Fixing in Esports

Match-fixing, at its heart, involves the manipulation of sports outcomes to serve ulterior motives—typically financial. Unlike traditional sports, where governing bodies like the NCAA or FIFA enforce broad and firmly established rules, esports lacks a centralized authority to uniformly regulate cheating, gambling, or unsportsmanlike conduct.

This regulatory vacuum continues to undermine public confidence in esports. In this decentralized ecosystem, third-party integrity watchdogs like the Esports Integrity Commission (ESIC) have emerged to fill the gap. Founded in 2016, ESIC has taken a leading role in investigating and penalizing match-fixing, with powers to issue suspensions, bans, and collaborate with law enforcement. ESIC has enforced several high-profile bans—including a lifetime ban for repeat offender Alexey Shyshko, and continues to expand its influence through partnerships, such as its recent collaboration with World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center (WIPO) to establish an international esports arbitration tribunal.

However, ESIC’s authority is contractual, meaning its enforcement power depends on whether tournament organizers agree to adhere to its code. While respected internationally, ESIC is not a government body and lacks legal jurisdiction.

In the United States, some leagues, like Riot Games’ Valorant Champions Tour, do maintain Codes of Conduct and tournament rules against match manipulation. Yet enforcement is inconsistent and often behind closed-doors, especially when rumors are involved. Gares’s post highlights this gap: in the absence of transparent enforcement, players and fans are forced to rely on speculation rather than process; or, as Gares urges, tasked with collecting their own evidence through screen recordings and meticulous record-keeping.

From a legal standpoint, this lack of transparency creates serious exposure. Tournament organizers, platforms, and teams risk breaching consumer protection laws, investor obligations, and even civil fraud statutes if events are manipulated. For players, the implications may be worse: participating in match-fixing, even under duress, can expose them to liability for breach of contract, tortious interference, or unjust enrichment.

Applicable Civil and Criminal Laws

Even without unionization or collective bargaining, professional esports players are governed by employment agreements, sponsorship contracts, and league rules. Match-fixing would constitute a breach of these obligations and may trigger claims under unfair competition law.

Unfair competition, broadly defined, includes deceptive business practices that “cause economic harm” to market participants or mislead the public. In jurisdictions like California and New York, courts have recognized that match-fixing can constitute fraud or commercial misrepresentation. If a player intentionally throws a match to profit from a betting scheme, that conduct may give rise to:

• Civil fraud claims by employers or sponsors,
• Unfair competition claims by rival players harmed by the fixed result, and
• Contract-based claims from platforms whose terms prohibit cheating or match manipulation.

As corporate brand partnerships and gaming sponsorships proliferate, the reputational damage from corruption may expose teams and tournaments to mounting lawsuits. Investors would have the right to sue if the promise of legitimate competition is intentionally violated.

There is no U.S. federal law that specifically criminalizes match-fixing in esports. However, prosecutors have relied upon two key statutes:

• Wire Fraud Statute (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Prosecutors can apply this statute if match-fixing involves online communications or transactions aimed at defrauding others. Typically used to combat illegal interstate wagering.
• Sports Bribery Act (18 U.S.C. § 224): Although designed for physical sports, this law could theoretically be extended to esports if individuals are compensated to influence gameplay outcomes.

International precedent also supports criminal liability. South Korea’s conviction of StarCraft pro Lee “Life” Seung Hyun and Singapore’s 2022 arrests of CS:GO players both illustrate how match-fixing in esports can cross into criminal territory. Additionally, ESIC has collaborated with international law enforcement and developers in several investigations, underscoring the need for transnational regulatory cooperation.

Reform and Legal Safeguards

To preserve esports’ credibility and protect its stakeholders, the industry must adopt robust integrity mechanisms. Key reforms should include:

• Recognizing ESIC or an Equivalent as an Independent Adjudicatory Body: Formal recognition by major tournament organizers and contractual alignment with league rules could be the first step. ESIC’s recent collaboration with WIPO to establish the IGET marks a promising step toward establishing uniform international standards.
• Codifying Investigatory and Disciplinary Procedures: Leagues must clearly define what constitutes match-fixing, what investigative steps are required, and what rights accused players have.
• Strengthening Player Protections: Contracts should include whistleblower protections, education on gambling risk, and mental health support, especially since many match-fixing schemes prey on financially vulnerable or underpaid players. That last point was stressed by Gares’s post when describing the deterioration of economic opportunities currently plaguing Tier 2.
• Mandating Integrity Audits and Ethics Training: As part of onboarding or tournament eligibility, players and staff should complete anti-corruption modules and submit to integrity checks similar to those in most other professional sports.

Conclusion

The recent VALORANT match-fixing controversy may eventually fade, but the potential legal issues Gares has promised to expose are just beginning to surface. Esports is no longer just for play; it’s been commercialized, creating legal pitfalls beyond what was once unimaginable. To ensure the continued growth of the esports industry, greater measures must be taken to ensure fair play and earn back public trust.