Unearthing the Employment Law Issues Underneath Porsche’s New Esports Performance Center and Honda’s Divorce from Team Liquid

The esports racing sim world just got a brand new performance center and it looks and sounds like the real deal.

On May 9, 2025, Porsche unveiled its new Esports Performance Center (PEPC) for its Porsche Coanda Esports Racing team. Porsche boasts its PEPC as a cutting-edge facility designed to prepare sim racers, such as Porsche’s stable of professional track drivers. PEPC features “six professional racing simulators and an adjoining workstation for the team’s racing engineers.” With coaching on everything from reaction times to mental fitness, it’s abundantly clear that Porsche plans to treat its esports competitors like their million-dollar drivers.

Days later, Team Liquid lost its automotive partner, Honda, after Rainbow Six Siege player and member of Team Liquid, Lucas Diaz (LucasDiaz) posted a controversial social media post. Moments after their loss to Japanese team CAG Osaka, Diaz posted a culturally insensitive gif—prompting Honda to quickly drop their partnership with Team Liquid. The split followed an all-too-familiar pattern: team member makes a mistake, sponsor disapproves, sponsor leaves, and a mutually beneficial partnership dissolves.

So, how might a new facility announcement match with a sponsorship divorce? As brands align themselves with teams, players, and events, the legal relationship between players and their teams warrants closer examination through the lens of Employment Law.

Esports Athletes As Employees

First, examining the Porsche facility, it is clear from the description that it touts itself as a premier destination for top racing sim players. It’s not just a comfortable place to stream from. It’s an all-encompassing campus where players may be scheduled, monitored, and expected to meet performance goals.

The esports industry has long treated players as independent contractors; however, when a team rents a facility like Porsche’s and requires structured use, courts might view things differently. This scenario, classifying Porsche’s esports sim drivers as employees, brings a host of legal considerations — minimum wage, overtime, health coverage, wrongful termination protections, and more.

Put simply, the more control a brand exerts—through structured training, codes of conduct, or required appearances—the harder it is to deny that players are employees and not independent contractors.

Conduct Clauses, Free Speech, and “Fireable Offenses”

Now to the Honda–Team Liquid situation. After a Team Liquid player made a regrettable social media post, Honda severed ties. While no outlet reporting on the dissolution are saying that the player was fired, the incident highlights the outsized influence sponsors wield; considering sponsorship dollars represent a large bulk of the funding keeping many of these teams operational.

If that player is an employee, there are legal limits to how and why they can be terminated. Depending on the jurisdiction, firing someone for lawful off-duty speech could be illegal. In the U.S., some states protect employees from termination based on political speech or lawful activity outside of work. Teams often rely on morals clauses—contract language that allows termination for behavior damaging to the brand. But morals clauses are often vague, and vague clauses are the kind courts routinely challenge as unenforceable. This also raises a risk for sponsors: if a sponsor pressures a team to discipline or drop a player, they could be considered a joint employer and be held liable for wrongful termination or discrimination.

In this case, would sim drivers posting on social media be considered within the parameters of their work or outside of work? Distinguishing between these two classifications would inform Team Liquid of their members’ respective duties. Instead of being governed just by the language found in the sponsorship agreements, Team Liquid would have greater protections afforded to them under applicable employment and labor law.

Facility Risks and Concerns

What happens when a team trains at Porsche’s new facility? Usually, there’s a rental agreement that sets rules for use, conduct, and liability. If a player violates those rules online or off, it’s not just bad PR. The team might be in breach of contract.

Worse, the facility might eject the team or demand damages. That can put the team in conflict with its own players. If players are indeed employees, many of the available actions are tightly regulated. And in some countries, even deducting pay for damages can violate established labor laws.

Teams that don’t align their rental contracts, sponsorship deals, and player agreements risk being litigated from both ends without a clear delineation between employees, partners, and independent contractors.

Solutions: Contract Clarity and Real Employment Policies

There’s no clear solution here, but a few steps may help reduce legal exposure:

• Clear Classification: Teams should stop hiding behind independent contractor labels if their treatment of players are like that of employees.
• Tailored Conduct Clauses: Morals clauses should be specific. Define unacceptable conduct clearly and tie it to a measurable impact for both the team and sponsor to be mindful of.
• Sponsorship Alignment: Sponsors should not be making personnel decisions. That would leave them vulnerable to joint employer liability.

Conclusion

Porsche’s Esports Performance Center (PEPC) is a glimpse into esports’ high-performance future. Honda’s sudden split from Team Liquid is a reminder of its legal growing pains. As teams move into more structured training environments and high-stakes sponsorships, the previous model relying upon loosely written contracts and unchecked control over players won’t hold.

Esports isn’t just growing up — it’s going corporate. And if the industry doesn’t start treating players like employees where it counts, courts and regulators might step in and do it for them.