The Legal Landscape of Gambling Sponsorships in Esports: 8 Games in Focus

Current State of Gambling Sponsorships in Major Esports Leagues

League of Legends (Riot Games)

Riot Games, the developer behind League of Legends (LoL), has maintained a relatively conservative approach to gambling sponsorships compared to other esports ecosystems. The League of Legends Championship Series (LCS) in North America and the League of Legends European Championship (LEC) have historically limited gambling-related sponsorships, particularly those directly promoting betting services.

The company’s cautious approach stems partly from its efforts to maintain a family-friendly image for its flagship title and the recognition that a significant portion of its player base consists of minors. Riot’s Global Esports Event Policy specifically requires tournament organizers to ensure that sponsorships are “tasteful” and “appropriate for the League of Legends player community.”

In 2020, the LEC faced significant backlash after announcing a partnership with NEOM, a Saudi Arabian development project, partly due to concerns about the country’s gambling regulations and broader human rights issues. The partnership was quickly terminated following community pressure, illustrating the sensitivity of sponsorship decisions in this space.

More recently, Riot has allowed some betting-adjacent sponsors, such as financial trading platforms and cryptocurrency exchanges. For example, the LCS partnered with FTX (prior to its collapse) as its official cryptocurrency exchange partner in 2021, and the LEC has worked with Crypto.com. However, Riot maintains strict guidelines on how these partnerships can be promoted, generally prohibiting direct promotion of betting services during broadcasts.

In regions like South Korea, where the League of Legends Champions Korea (LCK) operates, gambling sponsorships are effectively prohibited due to the country’s strict gambling laws, which ban most forms of gambling for citizens. The LCK has instead focused on technology, electronics, and food/beverage sponsors like Samsung, Logitech, and Korean Air.

In China’s League of Legends Pro League (LPL), perhaps the largest regional competition globally, gambling sponsorships are similarly absent due to the country’s stringent anti-gambling laws. Instead, the league has secured partnerships with companies like Mercedes-Benz, Nike, and KFC.

Regional qualifying tournaments for Riot’s international events like the Mid-Season Invitational (MSI) and the World Championship must also adhere to Riot’s guidelines regardless of local gambling regulations, creating a relatively uniform approach across the global League of Legends competitive ecosystem.

Counter-Strike (ESL, BLAST Premier, PGL)

Counter-Strike tournaments, operated by organizations like ESL (now part of ESL FACEIT Group), BLAST Premier, and PGL, have historically been more open to gambling sponsorships, reflecting both the game’s older average player demographic and the more fragmented nature of its competitive ecosystem.

ESL, which runs major tournaments such as ESL Pro League, IEM (Intel Extreme Masters), and ESL One, has maintained long-term partnerships with betting operators including Betway, which has been a sponsor since 2017. This partnership includes branded segments like the “Betway Headshot Challenge” during broadcasts and Betway-branded content on ESL’s social media channels.

BLAST Premier tournaments have featured partnerships with betting operators such as GG.BET and Coinbase, incorporating branded segments and betting odds into their broadcasts. However, BLAST has implemented age-gating for gambling-related content and maintains guidelines for how betting sponsors can be promoted during broadcasts, including restrictions on direct calls to action for betting and requirements for responsible gambling messaging.

PGL, which has organized Counter-Strike Majors (Valve-sponsored tournaments with the highest prestige), has worked with betting sponsors including 1xBet for events like the PGL Major Stockholm 2021. These sponsorships typically include logo placement, branded segments, and integration of betting odds into broadcasts.

Beyond these major tournament organizers, the Counter-Strike ecosystem includes numerous third-party tournaments with varying approaches to gambling sponsorships. Smaller regional tournaments, particularly in Eastern Europe and Asia, often rely heavily on betting sponsors due to limited alternative revenue sources.

The landscape became more complex following Valve’s 2016 crackdown on skin betting websites, which had been operating in a legal gray area by facilitating gambling using in-game items (skins) rather than traditional currency. Valve sent cease-and-desist letters to multiple skin betting platforms, asserting that they were violating Valve’s terms of service by using Steam accounts for commercial purposes. This action effectively shut down many skin betting operations, though some continued to operate by moving to cryptocurrency-based models.

Despite this intervention regarding unauthorized third-party gambling services, Valve has generally taken a hands-off approach to gambling sponsorships for third-party tournaments, allowing organizers significant autonomy in securing partnerships provided they don’t involve unauthorized use of Valve’s intellectual property or Steam platform.

The recent release of Counter-Strike 2 in 2023 has not significantly altered the landscape of gambling sponsorships in the ecosystem. Tournament organizers like ESL, BLAST, and PGL have continued their existing approaches to gambling partnerships, though the transition to the new game has prompted some renegotiation of sponsorship terms to reflect potential changes in viewership and player engagement.

Dota 2 (Valve)

Valve, the developer of Dota 2, has taken a somewhat hands-off approach to regulating gambling sponsorships in third-party tournaments, similar to its stance on Counter-Strike. However, The International, Dota 2’s premier annual tournament organized by Valve, has largely avoided direct gambling sponsorships, focusing instead on technology partners, gaming hardware manufacturers, and endemic gaming brands. However, this does not imply a complete ban. In 2022, The International partnered with GG.Bet as its first official betting partner.

The International, with its crowd-funded prize pool that reached a peak of over USD 40 million in 2021, represents one of the most prestigious events in all of esports. While Valve has avoided gambling sponsors for this flagship event, its approach to third-party tournaments has been less restrictive. Major tournament series like the Dota Pro Circuit (DPC), which functions as a qualifying system for The International, has seen varying approaches to gambling sponsorships depending on the regional organizers.

Regional tournaments and leagues, particularly those outside North America and Western Europe, have been more receptive to gambling sponsors. For example:

• The Eastern European DPC leagues, organized by companies like Epic Esports Events and BTS Pro Series, have frequently featured betting operators as sponsors, including 1xBet, GG.BET, and Parimatch.
• Southeast Asian tournaments, including those organized by ONE Esports and PGL, have partnered with regional betting operators like Dafabet and EMPIRE777.
• South American DPC leagues and tournaments have worked with betting sponsors including Betway and Rivalry.

These regional variations reflect both the more permissive gambling regulations in some of these regions and the economic realities of running tournaments in markets with less developed esports sponsorship ecosystems outside of gambling.

The Dota 2 competitive scene has also seen significant involvement from cryptocurrency gambling platforms, particularly in tournaments not directly affiliated with Valve. Platforms offering cryptocurrency betting on Dota 2 matches have sponsored events including Beyond the Summit tournaments and regional qualifiers.

It’s worth noting that the Dota 2 community has had a particularly close relationship with gambling due to the game’s cosmetic item economy and the historical presence of betting using in-game items. While Valve’s 2016 crackdown affected this ecosystem, the culture of betting on professional matches remains strong within the community, potentially making gambling sponsorships less controversial than in some other esports.

Call of Duty League (Activision Blizzard)

The Call of Duty League (CDL), operated by Activision Blizzard, has maintained a cautious approach to gambling partnerships since its launch in a franchised format in 2020. While the league itself has avoided direct gambling sponsorships, individual teams have entered into partnerships with betting operators.

The league’s franchise structure, modeled partly after traditional sports leagues, includes 12 city-based teams that paid a reported USD 25 million each for their franchise slots. This structure creates a two-tiered sponsorship system: league-wide sponsors secured by Activision Blizzard, and team-specific sponsors secured by individual franchise owners.

At the league level, the CDL has partnered primarily with endemic gaming brands like Mountain Dew Game Fuel, Astro Gaming, and SCUF Gaming, along with non-endemic sponsors like the U.S. Army and Zenni Optical. Notably absent are direct gambling operators, reflecting Activision Blizzard’s corporate position and potential concerns about the game’s “M for Mature” rating already restricting its audience.

At the team level, several CDL franchises have secured gambling-related sponsorships:

• The London Royal Ravens partnered with Midnite, a UK-based esports betting platform, in 2021.
• The New York Subliners worked with Betway for content creation and branded segments.
• The Los Angeles Thieves (operated by 100 Thieves) partnered with DraftKings for content initiatives.

In 2021, the CDL faced controversy when the league’s official website briefly featured odds from betting operators, raising questions about the relationship between the league and gambling entities. Following public discussion, these elements were removed. This incident highlighted the tension between the potential revenue opportunities presented by gambling partnerships and the brand image Activision Blizzard seeks to maintain for the league.

The CDL’s approach to gambling sponsorships is also influenced by its broadcast strategy, which relies primarily on YouTube Gaming as its exclusive streaming partner. YouTube’s policies regarding gambling content are generally less restrictive than those of Twitch, potentially allowing for more flexibility in how gambling sponsors can be integrated into broadcasts, though the league has not fully leveraged this opportunity.

Activision’s acquisition by Microsoft, announced in 2022 and completed in 2023 after regulatory scrutiny, has not yet significantly altered the league’s approach to gambling sponsorships, though future policy changes remain possible as the integration progresses.

Overwatch League (Activision Blizzard)

Similar to the CDL, the Overwatch League (OWL) has generally avoided direct gambling sponsorships at the league level. This approach aligns with Activision Blizzard’s broader strategy of positioning its esports leagues as family-friendly entertainment properties, particularly given Overwatch’s “T for Teen” rating and its more cartoonish, accessible aesthetic compared to some other competitive titles.

The OWL, which launched in 2018 with a franchised structure similar to traditional sports leagues, initially secured sponsorships from companies like HP, Intel, T-Mobile, and Coca-Cola. As the league evolved, it added partners such as IBM, State Farm, and Xfinity, while maintaining its distance from gambling operators at the league level.

Individual OWL teams, however, operate with varying degrees of autonomy in securing sponsorships. Teams like the Philadelphia Fusion (owned by Comcast Spectacor) and the San Francisco Shock (owned by NRG Esports) have partnered with betting-adjacent companies, particularly in regions with more permissive regulations.

The OWL’s approach to gambling sponsorships has been influenced by several factors:

• Blizzard’s effort to position Overwatch as an accessible esport with broad demographic appeal, including younger viewers
• The game’s fantasy setting and stylized visuals, which contrast with the more realistic military themes of Call of Duty
• The league’s initial broadcast partnership with Twitch, which had stricter policies regarding gambling content before moving to YouTube Gaming in 2020

It is worth noting that the OWL has faced significant challenges in recent years, with declining viewership leading to a restructuring announced in 2022. As part of this transition, the league has shifted away from the city-based franchise model and adopted a tournament-based approach, more closely aligning with traditional esports. This restructuring could potentially lead to changes in sponsorship strategies, though gambling partnerships remain unlikely at the league level given Activision Blizzard’s broader positioning.

Valorant Champions Tour (Riot Games)

As a newer esports ecosystem, the Valorant Champions Tour (VCT) has followed Riot Games’ generally conservative approach to gambling sponsorships. Launched in 2021 after the game’s release in 2020, the VCT has quickly established itself as a major esports property, with a structured competitive system leading to international events including Masters tournaments and the annual Valorant Champions event.

Riot’s approach to the VCT largely mirrors its strategy for League of Legends, emphasizing partnerships with technology companies, gaming hardware manufacturers, and lifestyle brands rather than gambling operators. Major VCT sponsors have included Red Bull, Verizon, Prime Gaming, and Secretlab, reflecting Riot’s preference for non-gambling partners.

The VCT’s partnership program, launched in 2023, established long-term relationships with selected teams in three international leagues: Americas, EMEA (Europe, Middle East, and Africa), and Pacific. This program, similar to franchising models in other esports, gives Riot significant control over team-level sponsorships, allowing it to maintain consistent standards regarding gambling partnerships across the ecosystem.

Regional variations do exist in the Valorant competitive scene:

• In Europe and North America, gambling sponsorships at official VCT events remain limited, reflecting both Riot’s policies and the regulatory environments in these regions.
• In Southeast Asia, where the Valorant Pacific league operates, some gambling-adjacent sponsorships have been observed at the team level, though Riot maintains oversight through the partnership program.
• In Latin America, third-party tournaments outside the official VCT structure have sometimes featured betting sponsors, though these remain separate from Riot-operated events.

As with League of Legends, Riot’s approach to the VCT reflects both commercial considerations and the company’s desire to maintain a certain brand image—particularly important for Valorant given its positioning as a more accessible alternative to Counter-Strike while still appealing to competitive FPS players.

Fortnite (Epic Games)

Epic Games has maintained one of the strictest stances on gambling sponsorships among major esports publishers. Fortnite competitive events, including the Fortnite World Cup and Fortnite Champion Series (FNCS), explicitly prohibit gambling sponsorships through their participation rules and guidelines.

This stringent approach reflects several factors:

• Fortnite’s player base includes a significant number of minors, making gambling sponsorships particularly problematic from both ethical and regulatory perspectives.
• Epic Games has positioned Fortnite as a family-friendly battle royale game, distinguishing it from more mature competitors in the genre.
• The company’s substantial financial resources, bolstered by Fortnite’s immense success as a free-to-play title with in-game purchases, reduce its dependence on sponsorship revenue compared to some other esports properties.

Epic’s tournament license agreement contains explicit provisions prohibiting gambling sponsorships, regardless of the legal status of gambling in the jurisdiction where the tournament is held. This establishes a globally consistent policy that tournament organizers must follow to obtain a license for running official Fortnite competitions.

The Fortnite World Cup, which featured a USD 30 million prize pool for its inaugural event in 2019, partnered with sponsors including Coca-Cola, YouTube, Samsung, and Secretlab—notably avoiding any gambling operators despite the event’s massive viewership and the potential revenue such partnerships might generate.

Epic’s policy extends beyond direct gambling sponsorships to also restrict content creators from promoting gambling services while playing Fortnite on platforms like Twitch and YouTube. This comprehensive approach has effectively prevented gambling operators from establishing a significant presence in the Fortnite competitive ecosystem.

Rocket League (Psyonix/Epic Games)

Since Epic Games’ acquisition of Psyonix in 2019, Rocket League esports has aligned with Epic’s conservative approach to gambling sponsorships. The Rocket League Championship Series (RLCS), the game’s premier competitive circuit, has avoided gambling sponsors at the league level.

The RLCS has instead focused on partnerships with gaming hardware companies like Logitech, automotive brands like Lamborghini, and consumer brands like Coca-Cola. This approach reflects both Epic’s corporate policies and Rocket League’s broad demographic appeal, which includes younger players.

Individual teams competing in the RLCS have occasionally secured gambling-related sponsorships, particularly before Epic’s acquisition of Psyonix, though these have become less common as the ecosystem has aligned more closely with Epic’s policies.

Fighting Game Community (EVO, Capcom Cup, Tekken World Tour)

The Fighting Game Community (FGC) presents a unique case in the esports landscape, with a more fragmented competitive ecosystem spanning multiple games and publishers, including Street Fighter (Capcom), Tekken (Bandai Namco), Super Smash Bros. (Nintendo), and Mortal Kombat (Warner Bros).

The Evolution Championship Series (EVO), the most prestigious fighting game tournament, has historically maintained distance from gambling sponsors, focusing instead on gaming hardware manufacturers, game publishers, and endemic FGC brands. Following Sony’s acquisition of EVO in 2021, this cautious approach has continued, aligning with Sony’s corporate policies.

Publisher-operated circuits like the Capcom Pro Tour (for Street Fighter) and the Tekken World Tour have similarly avoided direct gambling sponsorships at the circuit level, though their approaches to team-level sponsorships vary. Nintendo, in particular, maintains strict control over how its intellectual property can be used in competitive contexts, effectively preventing gambling sponsorships at official Super Smash Bros. events.

The grassroots nature of many FGC tournaments creates space for regional variations, with smaller events sometimes securing gambling sponsors in jurisdictions where such partnerships are legally permissible and culturally accepted.

Regional Regulatory Frameworks

United States

The United States presents a particularly complex regulatory environment for gambling sponsorships in esports, characterized by a patchwork of state-level regulations following the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision to strike down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. This landmark ruling removed the federal prohibition on sports betting, allowing states to legalize and regulate the activity individually.

As of early 2024, over 30 states plus Washington D.C. have legalized sports betting in some form, though approaches to esports betting specifically vary significantly:

• New Jersey, one of the first states to legalize sports betting following the PASPA repeal, has established a relatively progressive approach to esports betting. The New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE) has approved betting on certain esports events, including major tournaments for League of Legends, Counter-Strike, and Dota 2. However, the state requires specific approval for each esports event, creating administrative hurdles for operators and limiting the market’s development.
• Nevada, with its long-established gambling industry, similarly requires event-by-event approval for esports betting through the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB). The state has approved betting on major events like The International and the League of Legends World Championship, though the approval process can be lengthy and uncertain.
• Pennsylvania’s Gaming Control Board has taken a more cautious approach, approving esports betting on a limited basis while expressing concerns about match integrity and age verification. The state’s sports betting regulations generally require that participants be 18 years or older, creating complications for esports competitions where younger players sometimes participate.
• Colorado stands out for its more progressive approach, with regulations explicitly mentioning esports as eligible for sports betting, provided the events meet certain criteria regarding oversight and integrity, without requiring event-by-event approval.
• Washington State presents an interesting case, having taken early action against skin gambling through its gambling commission’s 2016 investigation into Valve (headquartered in the state) regarding third-party skin betting sites using Steam accounts. The state has since legalized sports betting on a limited basis (only at tribal casinos), but has yet to establish clear guidelines regarding esports specifically.

At the federal level, several laws continue to influence the landscape:

• The Wire Act of 1961, originally intended to combat organized crime’s involvement in interstate gambling, prohibits the use of wire communication facilities for transmitting bets or wagering information across state lines. While a 2011 Department of Justice opinion limited the Act’s scope to sports betting (excluding other forms of gambling), a 2018 opinion reversed this position, creating legal uncertainty that was partially resolved by a January 2021 court decision again limiting the Act’s application to sports betting. This complex legal history creates challenges for online betting operators seeking to sponsor national esports events, as they must navigate potential Wire Act implications.
• The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of 2006 prohibits gambling businesses from knowingly accepting payments related to illegal gambling. While UIGEA doesn’t define what constitutes illegal gambling (deferring to other federal and state laws), it creates additional compliance requirements for payment processors working with gambling operators, potentially complicating sponsorship payment structures in esports.
• The Interstate Horseracing Act, as amended, provides a limited exemption to interstate betting prohibitions for horse racing, establishing a potential precedent for future federal legislation specifically addressing esports betting.

Beyond these gambling-specific regulations, esports sponsorships must also navigate federal advertising standards enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), particularly regarding endorsements and disclosures. The FTC’s Endorsement Guides require clear disclosure of material connections between advertisers and endorsers, with implications for how gambling sponsorships can be presented by esports personalities and organizations.

State-level advertising regulations create additional complexity, with states like Massachusetts implementing strict guidelines on sports betting advertisements, including limitations on using personalities appealing to individuals under 21—a provision with obvious relevance to esports given its younger audience demographic.

The fragmented nature of this regulatory landscape creates significant challenges for gambling operators seeking to establish national sponsorship strategies in U.S. esports. Organizations often adopt the most conservative approach that complies with all potentially applicable regulations, limiting the development of gambling sponsorships in the U.S. market despite its size and significance in the global esports ecosystem.

European Union

The European Union lacks a unified approach to gambling regulation, with member states maintaining significant autonomy in establishing their own frameworks under the principle of subsidiarity. This has created a diverse regulatory landscape for gambling sponsorships in esports, with approaches ranging from relatively permissive to highly restrictive depending on the jurisdiction.

Several key markets demonstrate this diversity:

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom, through the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC), has established relatively clear guidelines for esports betting and sponsorships. The Gambling Act 2005, as amended by the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014, requires operators offering gambling services to British consumers to hold appropriate licenses regardless of where they are based.

For esports specifically, the UKGC published a position paper in 2017 clarifying that betting on esports falls within the definition of regulated gambling when it involves real money or items with real-world value (such as skins). This explicit recognition provided legal certainty for operators and set the stage for legitimate gambling sponsorships in UK esports.

UK gambling advertising is regulated through a combination of legislation, the UKGC’s Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP), and industry self-regulation, facilitated by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the Industry Group for Responsible Gambling (IGRG). Key requirements include:

• Gambling advertisements must not appeal particularly to individuals under 18 or feature anyone who appears to be under 25 playing a significant role.
• Advertisements must include responsible gambling messaging and age warnings.
• Since 2019, gambling operators have voluntarily implemented a “whistle-to-whistle” ban on gambling advertisements during televised sporting events before 9 PM, though this does not always extend to online esports broadcasts.

These regulations have created a structured environment for gambling sponsorships in UK esports, with operators like Betway, Unibet, and bet365 establishing partnerships with UK-based organizations and events. The Gfinity Elite Series, hosted in London before its discontinuation in 2019, featured gambling sponsors with age-gated content for viewers in appropriate jurisdictions.

Sweden

Sweden implemented a significant gambling reform in 2019 with the introduction of the Gambling Act (Spellagen), ending the state monopoly and creating a licensed market for private operators. This reform established a regulatory framework through Spelinspektionen (the Swedish Gambling Authority) that explicitly addresses esports betting.

Under Swedish regulations, licensed operators can offer esports betting and enter into sponsorship agreements with esports organizations, provided they adhere to responsible gambling requirements. These include:

• Clear separation of gambling content from material targeting minors
• Moderate marketing with prominent responsible gambling messaging
• Limitations on bonus offers to new customers only

These regulations have enabled Swedish esports organizations like Ninjas in Pyjamas and Fnatic (which has Swedish origins) to establish partnerships with licensed gambling operators while maintaining compliance with local requirements.

However, Sweden has imposed increasingly strict limitations on gambling advertising, with a 2019 government investigation proposing measures similar to those for tobacco advertising. While these most stringent proposals have not yet been implemented, the regulatory direction suggests potential future restrictions on gambling sponsorships in Swedish esports.

Malta

Malta has established itself as a significant hub for online gambling operators through its regulatory framework administered by the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA). The Gaming Act of 2018 modernized the country’s approach, explicitly addressing remote gaming (including esports betting) and establishing a comprehensive licensing system.

The MGA’s approach specifically addresses esports betting, providing a legal foundation for many European gambling sponsors in esports. Malta-licensed operators like Betway, GG.BET, and Rivalry have leveraged this regulatory clarity to establish partnerships with esports organizations and tournaments across Europe.

Malta’s reputation as a gambling-friendly jurisdiction has made it a popular base for operators targeting the European esports market, though these operators must still comply with regulations in the specific countries where their services are offered and their sponsorships are activated.

Germany

Germany presents a more complex case, having implemented the Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2021 (Glücksspielstaatsvertrag 2021) after years of regulatory uncertainty. This treaty established a federal regulatory framework and licensing system for online gambling, including sports and esports betting.

The new regulatory regime imposes significant restrictions on gambling advertising, including:

• Prohibition of advertising targeting minors or vulnerable individuals
• Restrictions on advertising during broadcasts of sporting events
• Requirements for responsible gambling messaging

These limitations have created challenges for gambling sponsorships in German esports, though major events like ESL One Cologne (a premier Counter-Strike tournament) have continued to feature partnerships with betting operators that navigate these restrictions through careful activation strategies.

France

France regulates online gambling through the Autorité Nationale des Jeux (ANJ), which replaced ARJEL in 2020. The French regulatory framework permits licensed operators to offer esports betting and enter into sponsorship agreements, subject to restrictions aimed at protecting minors and preventing excessive gambling.

French regulations require clear separation between gambling content and material targeting minors, creating challenges for esports sponsorships given the younger demographic of many esports audiences. Nevertheless, French teams like Team Vitality have established partnerships with licensed gambling operators, implementing age verification systems and responsible gambling messaging to maintain compliance.

Spain

Spain’s gambling regulations, administered by the Dirección General de Ordenación del Juego (DGOJ), have become increasingly restrictive regarding advertising. Royal Decree 958/2020 imposed significant limitations on gambling advertising, including:

• Prohibition of gambling sponsorships on sports jerseys
• Restrictions on advertising to between 1 AM and 5 AM on television and radio
• Ban on gambling companies as naming sponsors for sports events

These restrictions have significantly impacted gambling sponsorships in Spanish esports, forcing organizations to develop alternative revenue streams and limiting the presence of betting operators in the Spanish market.

Italy

Italy has implemented some of Europe’s strictest regulations on gambling advertising through the “Dignity Decree” of 2018, which effectively banned all gambling advertising and sponsorships across all media platforms with limited exceptions. This comprehensive prohibition extends to esports, preventing Italian teams and tournaments from securing gambling sponsorships.

The Italian approach represents the most restrictive end of the European regulatory spectrum, contrasting sharply with more permissive jurisdictions like Malta, and potentially indicating a direction that other European countries might follow as concerns about the social impact of gambling grow.

Asia

Asian markets present diverse regulatory environments for gambling sponsorships in esports, reflecting significant cultural, legal, and political differences across the region:

China

China maintains some of the strictest gambling laws globally, with most forms of gambling prohibited except for state-run lotteries. The Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China explicitly criminalizes gambling activities, while various administrative regulations address online gambling specifically.

These prohibitions extend to gambling sponsorships in esports, effectively preventing Chinese teams and tournaments from partnering with betting operators. Despite hosting a significant esports market, particularly for games like League of Legends (with the LPL being one of the world’s premier leagues), Dota 2, and mobile titles like Honor of Kings, gambling sponsorships in Chinese esports are extremely limited.

Chinese regulations also restrict foreign gambling operators from targeting Chinese citizens, creating compliance risks for international tournaments that feature gambling sponsors and are broadcast in China. Some international organizers implement region-specific broadcast versions without gambling sponsor content for Chinese audiences to navigate these restrictions.

The Chinese government has taken an increasingly active role in regulating the broader gaming industry, with implications for esports. Measures including playtime restrictions for minors, content guidelines, and approval requirements for new games have created a highly regulated environment that extends to sponsorship activities.

South Korea

South Korea, with its long-established esports infrastructure dating back to the StarCraft era of the early 2000s, similarly restricts most forms of gambling for its citizens. The Criminal Act prohibits most gambling activities, while the National Sports Promotion Act provides limited exceptions for certain types of sports betting operated by the Korea Sports Promotion Foundation.

These restrictions effectively prevent gambling sponsorships in major Korean esports leagues like the LCK (League of Legends Champions Korea) and the Global StarCraft League. Korean teams participating in international competitions must also navigate these restrictions when considering sponsorships.

The Korean esports ecosystem has instead developed around technology sponsors, telecommunications companies, and consumer brands. Major sponsors of Korean esports include companies like Samsung, SK Telecom, KT Rolster, and more recently, non-endemic brands like BMW and Kia.

Korean broadcasting regulations, enforced by the Korea Communications Standards Commission (KCSC), create additional limitations on gambling-related content in esports broadcasts, further restricting the potential for gambling sponsorships in this market.

Japan

Japan has recently begun liberalizing its gambling laws, though this process remains gradual and primarily focused on integrated resorts with casino gambling rather than online betting. The IR Development Act of 2016 and subsequent amendments have created a framework for limited casino gambling in designated integrated resorts, representing a significant shift in Japan’s historically restrictive approach.

However, sports betting remains largely limited to government-operated programs like sports lottery tickets (toto) and horse racing through the Japan Racing Association. These restrictions have limited gambling sponsorships in Japanese esports, though the situation may evolve as the country’s gambling regulations continue to develop.

The Japanese esports market has grown significantly in recent years, with the establishment of the Japan Esports Union (JESU) in 2018 providing more structured governance. Sponsorships in Japanese esports have primarily come from technology companies, game publishers, and consumer brands rather than gambling operators.

Philippines

The Philippines has established itself as a regional hub for online gambling operators through the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) licensing system. The Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator (POGO) program, established in 2016, allows companies to offer online gambling services to customers outside the Philippines.

This relatively permissive regulatory environment has enabled gambling sponsorships in Philippine esports, with local tournaments and teams securing partnerships with both domestic and international betting operators. Major events like the Manila Major (Dota 2) and the Galaxy Battles have featured gambling sponsors, though these sponsorships must navigate PAGCOR’s guidelines regarding responsible gambling and advertising.

It’s worth noting that the POGO system has faced increasing scrutiny and regulatory changes, particularly under the administration that took office in 2022, creating some uncertainty for gambling operators in the Philippine market.

Singapore

Singapore maintains strict regulations on gambling through the Casino Control Act, Remote Gambling Act, and other legislation, generally prohibiting online gambling except through specifically exempted operators like Singapore Pools. These restrictions limit gambling sponsorships in Singaporean esports, though international tournaments hosted in Singapore sometimes feature betting sponsors targeting audiences in other jurisdictions.

The Singapore Esports Association, recognized by the International Esports Federation, has focused on developing partnerships with technology companies, educational institutions, and non-gambling entities to support the growth of esports in the country while navigating these regulatory constraints.

Vietnam

Vietnam’s legal framework generally prohibits gambling for its citizens, with limited exceptions for foreigners in certain casinos and a pilot program for sports betting. These restrictions effectively prevent Vietnamese esports organizations from securing direct gambling sponsorships.

The Vietnamese esports scene has experienced significant growth in recent years, particularly in mobile esports titles such as Arena of Valor and Mobile Legends: Bang Bang. Sponsorships in Vietnamese esports have primarily come from technology companies, telecommunications providers, and gaming hardware manufacturers rather than gambling operators.

Australia

Australia’s regulatory approach to gambling sponsorships in esports is shaped by several key pieces of legislation, most notably the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (IGA), as amended in 2017. The IGA prohibits unlicensed online gambling services from being provided to Australian residents, creating a regulated environment for legitimate operators while targeting illegal offshore services.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has been empowered to enforce the IGA, with capabilities including website blocking, civil penalties, and cooperation with international regulators. This enforcement regime has created a more structured environment for legitimate gambling operators seeking to sponsor Australian esports.

Licensed sports betting operators, regulated at the state and territory level, can legally sponsor esports events, subject to advertising restrictions that prohibit gambling advertisements during live sports broadcasts before 8:30 PM. These restrictions were implemented through the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 as amended by the Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Act 2018, reflecting concerns about children’s exposure to gambling advertising.

Australian consumer law, enforced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), creates additional requirements for transparent disclosure of commercial relationships, with implications for how gambling sponsorships must be presented in esports content.

The ACMA has taken an increasing interest in esports betting, particularly regarding skin betting and loot boxes, which exist in a regulatory gray area. A 2018 report by the Australian Senate Environment and Communications References Committee specifically examined loot boxes in video games, discussing their potential classification as gambling and implications for regulation.

Major Australian esports organizations like ORDER (before its 2022 closure) and Chiefs Esports Club have generally avoided direct gambling sponsorships, focusing instead on technology companies, telecommunications providers, and non-gambling entertainment brands. This cautious approach reflects both the regulatory environment and community expectations in the Australian market.

The Australian esports scene has seen some involvement from betting operators through event sponsorships rather than team partnerships. For example, the Oceanic Pro League (OPL) for League of Legends, which was discontinued in 2020, occasionally featured betting-adjacent sponsors. These sponsors were presented with age gates and responsible gambling messaging in accordance with Australian regulations.

Middle East and North Africa (MENA)

The MENA region presents unique challenges for gambling sponsorships in esports due to religious and cultural factors, as well as legal restrictions in many countries:

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia has invested heavily in esports through entities like the Saudi Esports Federation and Savvy Games Group (backed by the Public Investment Fund), with initiatives including the Esports World Cup with a USD 45 million prize pool announced for 2024. However, gambling is strictly prohibited under Saudi law based on Islamic principles, effectively preventing gambling sponsorships in Saudi esports events.

The kingdom’s Vision 2030 initiative has identified gaming and esports as strategic sectors for economic diversification, leading to significant investments in teams, tournaments, and infrastructure. These investments have focused on partnerships with technology companies, game publishers, and lifestyle brands rather than gambling operators.

United Arab Emirates

The UAE has similarly positioned itself as an emerging hub for esports in the region, hosting major tournaments and establishing dedicated esports venues. While the UAE has more relaxed social policies than some neighboring countries, gambling remains largely prohibited, limiting gambling sponsorships in UAE-based esports.

Recent regulatory developments, including the establishment of the UAE Gaming Regulatory Authority in 2023, have focused on regulating video games rather than gambling, maintaining the separation between these sectors in the UAE market.

Turkey

Turkey presents a complex case, with most forms of gambling prohibited except for the state-owned sports betting operator IDDAA and the national lottery. These restrictions effectively prevent Turkish esports organizations from securing sponsorships with international betting operators.

Despite these limitations, Turkey has developed a significant esports ecosystem, particularly in games like Valorant and League of Legends. Turkish teams competing internationally, such as Fenerbahçe Esports (affiliated with the traditional sports club) and FUT Esports, have focused on partnerships with technology companies and non-gambling entities to support their operations.

Key Legal Challenges and Considerations

Age Demographics and Youth Protection

One of the most significant legal challenges facing gambling sponsorships in esports is the young demographic of many esports audiences. Various jurisdictions have established regulations specifically designed to protect minors from exposure to gambling advertising.

In the United Kingdom, the ASA has taken action against gambling operators whose advertisements appeared to target individuals under 18, including through esports sponsorships. In 2020, the ASA ruled against a YouTube advertisement by Gala Spins featuring animated characters that potentially appealed to children, establishing a precedent with implications for how gambling can be promoted in gaming contexts.

The UK Gambling Commission has similarly emphasized the importance of age verification in the context of esports betting. Their 2017 position paper on virtual currencies, esports, and social gaming specifically noted concerns about “the risk that children and young people may be influenced by the actions of others, in particular people they respect as experts in the gaming or esports world,” highlighting the unique challenges presented by influencers and content creators in this space.

In the United States, the FTC has the authority to address unfair or deceptive advertising practices, including those targeting minors. The FTC’s 2017 settlement with the owners of CSGO Lotto established that failure to disclose material connections when promoting gambling services constitutes deceptive advertising, with particular concerns when such promotions might reach minors.

State attorneys general have also been active in addressing gambling-adjacent activities in gaming. In 2016, the Washington State Gambling Commission ordered Valve to stop facilitating skin gambling through its Steam platform, while the Minnesota attorney general launched an investigation into fantasy esports operator Fanduel’s age verification practices.

European regulations have increasingly focused on protecting minors from gambling advertising. The European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) has developed a code of conduct for advertising that includes provisions specifically addressing content appealing to minors, with implementation varying across member states.

These regulatory concerns have prompted industry responses, including:

• Age-gating of gambling-related content during esports broadcasts
• Scheduling gambling advertisements outside of hours when younger viewers are likely to be watching
• Developing more sophisticated age verification systems for esports betting platforms
• Implementing educational initiatives about responsible gambling targeted at younger audiences

Game Publisher Policies

Game publishers exercise significant control over how their intellectual property can be used, allowing them to establish policies regarding gambling sponsorships that may be more restrictive than prevailing legal requirements.

Riot Games’ third-party tournament guidelines for League of Legends and Valorant include provisions regarding gambling sponsorships. For events targeting players under 18, gambling sponsorships are prohibited entirely, while for adult-focused events, sponsorships must comply with all applicable regulations and cannot promote illegal services. These guidelines create a publisher-level regulatory layer that tournament organizers must navigate in addition to legal requirements.

Valve has taken action against unauthorized gambling using its Steam platform and in-game items, sending cease-and-desist letters to numerous skin gambling websites in 2016. However, Valve has generally been less prescriptive regarding sponsorships for third-party tournaments, allowing organizers significant autonomy provided they don’t involve unauthorized use of Valve’s intellectual property.

Epic Games’ tournament license agreement for Fortnite explicitly prohibits gambling sponsorships, regardless of the legal status of gambling in the tournament’s jurisdiction. This creates a globally consistent policy that all tournament organizers must follow to obtain a license to run official Fortnite competitions, effectively preventing gambling operators from establishing a presence in the Fortnite competitive ecosystem.

Activision Blizzard maintains different approaches across its esports properties. For the Overwatch League and Call of Duty League, gambling sponsorships have generally been avoided at the league level, though individual teams have some autonomy in securing partners. For third-party tournaments in games like Hearthstone, the company’s policies are less restrictive but still require compliance with all applicable regulations.

These publisher policies create an additional layer of regulation beyond legal requirements, reflecting each company’s brand strategy, target audience, and risk assessment. This can create challenges for tournament organizers and teams seeking to maximize sponsorship revenue while maintaining compliance with both legal regulations and publisher requirements.

Cross-Jurisdictional Operations

Esports events frequently operate across multiple jurisdictions, with players, viewers, and sponsoring organizations potentially subject to different regulatory frameworks. This creates significant complexity for gambling sponsorships, requiring careful consideration of compliance across all relevant jurisdictions.

International tournaments must navigate varying gambling laws, potentially requiring region-specific approaches to sponsorship activation. Major events like The International (Dota 2) or the League of Legends World Championship, which travel to different host countries each year, must adapt their sponsorship strategies to comply with local regulations in each location.

This challenge extends to online broadcasts, which can reach viewers in jurisdictions with vastly different approaches to gambling regulation. Tournament organizers have implemented various solutions, including:

• Geoblocking gambling-related content for viewers in restrictive jurisdictions
• Creating region-specific broadcast versions with different sponsors
• Implementing age verification and responsible gambling messaging tailored to specific regional requirements
• Using virtual advertising technology to display different sponsors to viewers in different regions

Online streaming platforms like Twitch and YouTube Gaming, which serve as primary distribution channels for esports content, have established their own policies regarding gambling content. Twitch’s October 2022 policy change prohibited streams from gambling websites offering slots, roulette, or dice games that aren’t licensed in the US or other jurisdictions with “sufficient consumer protection,” though sports betting, fantasy sports, and poker were exempted from this ban. This platform-level policy creates an additional regulatory layer for esports content featuring gambling sponsors.

YouTube’s policies are generally less restrictive regarding gambling content, requiring age-appropriate targeting but allowing gambling advertisements in countries where such services are legal. This platform difference has influenced how gambling sponsorships are activated across different esports broadcasts, with some content creators and organizations migrating between platforms based partly on these policy differences.

The complexity of cross-jurisdictional compliance has led many esports organizations to adopt the most conservative approach that satisfies all potentially applicable regulations, potentially limiting sponsorship opportunities but reducing legal and reputational risks.

Skin Betting and Virtual Items

The use of in-game items (skins) as betting currency has created novel legal challenges. While traditional gambling laws focus on “things of value,” the legal status of virtual items remains ambiguous in many jurisdictions.

Skin betting emerged primarily in the Counter-Strike ecosystem, where the game’s weapon skins could be traded through Steam’s marketplace, establishing real-world values. Third-party websites then developed platforms allowing users to bet these skins on esports matches or casino-style games, operating outside the direct control of game publishers.

This practice raised various legal questions:

• Do virtual items with no official cash-out mechanism but with established secondary markets constitute “things of value” under gambling laws?
• Which jurisdiction’s laws apply when virtual items are bet by users across multiple countries?
• What responsibility do game publishers have for third-party gambling services using their virtual economies?
• How should age verification be implemented for services that don’t use traditional currency?

The Washington State Gambling Commission’s 2016 action against Valve regarding third-party skin gambling sites highlighted regulatory concerns about unauthorized gambling using game assets. The Commission ordered Valve to stop allowing the transfer of skins for gambling purposes through its Steam API, asserting that such activities violated state gambling laws. Valve responded by sending cease-and-desist letters to many skin gambling sites, though the core functionality of the Steam marketplace remained unchanged.

The UK Gambling Commission has specifically addressed skin betting, clarifying in its 2017 position paper that where virtual items can be converted to money or exchanged for money’s worth, a gambling license is required. This position effectively classified most skin betting operations as unlicensed gambling, leading to enforcement actions against several prominent platforms.

The skin betting controversy prompted many game publishers to reevaluate their virtual economies and trading systems. Valve implemented trade restrictions that made skin betting more difficult, while other publishers designed their cosmetic item systems without tradability to avoid similar issues. Riot Games, for example, made League of Legends and Valorant skins non-tradable, effectively preventing similar gambling ecosystems from developing around these games.

The legal questions raised by skin betting extend to other virtual item systems in gaming, including loot boxes, which have faced increasing regulatory scrutiny. Several jurisdictions, including Belgium and the Netherlands, have classified certain implementations of loot boxes as gambling, requiring game publishers to modify their products for these markets.

This evolving legal landscape around virtual items continues to influence how game publishers design their economies and how esports organizations approach partnerships with companies operating in related spaces, such as cryptocurrency and NFT platforms that might raise similar regulatory questions.

Recent Legal Developments and Enforcement Actions

CSGO Lotto and Influencer Disclosure

In 2017, the FTC settled charges against Trevor “TmarTn” Martin and Thomas “Syndicate” Cassell, the owners of CSGO Lotto, a skin gambling website they had promoted extensively on their YouTube channels without adequately disclosing their ownership interests.

The complaint alleged that Martin and Cassell had deceptively endorsed the website while failing to disclose that they jointly owned the company, violating the FTC Act. Additionally, the complaint charged that the pair had paid other well-known influencers thousands of dollars to promote the site on social media without requiring them to disclose the payments.

This settlement established a precedent for requiring transparent disclosure of material connections between influencers and gambling operators. The FTC’s final order prohibited Martin and Cassell from misrepresenting that any endorser was an independent user or ordinary consumer of a product or service, and required clear and conspicuous disclosures of any unexpected material connections with endorsers.

The case highlighted the increasingly blurred lines between content creation, esports, and gambling promotion, establishing regulatory expectations that continue to influence influencer marketing in the space. Following this action, many esports organizations and content creators became more cautious about gambling partnerships, implementing clearer disclosures and more thorough legal review processes.

FaZe Clan and Cryptocurrency Gambling

In 2021, FaZe Clan, one of the most prominent esports and gaming organizations globally, faced significant controversy after several members promoted cryptocurrency gambling websites without adequate disclosure of potential risks or their financial arrangements with these platforms.

The organization suspended three members and removed one entirely following allegations that they had participated in a “pump and dump” scheme involving a cryptocurrency called Save The Kids. While not directly related to traditional gambling, this incident highlighted the evolving regulatory challenges at the intersection of gaming, cryptocurrency, and gambling-adjacent activities.

In 2022, FaZe Clan faced further scrutiny when content creators affiliated with the organization promoted cryptocurrency gambling websites including Stake.com and Roobet. These promotions raised questions about responsibility to young audiences and compliance with gambling advertising regulations across various jurisdictions.

This controversy contributed to broader discussions about influencer responsibility in promoting gambling services, particularly given the young demographics of many gaming audiences. It also highlighted the regulatory challenges posed by cryptocurrency gambling, which often operates outside traditional gambling regulatory frameworks.

Twitch’s Gambling Policy Changes

In October 2022, Twitch implemented significant changes to its gambling content policies, prohibiting streams from gambling websites offering slots, roulette, or dice games that aren’t licensed in the US or other jurisdictions with “sufficient consumer protection.” The platform explicitly banned several prominent cryptocurrency gambling websites including Stake.com, Rollbit.com, Duelbits.com, and Roobet.com, though it exempted sports betting, fantasy sports, and poker from these restrictions.

This policy change followed substantial community pressure, including threats of boycotts from prominent streamers concerned about gambling’s impact on the platform’s audience, which includes many younger viewers. The change had significant implications for esports organizations and content creators with gambling sponsorships, effectively preventing them from promoting certain types of gambling services during Twitch streams.

The Twitch policy change highlighted the growing influence of platform policies in shaping the esports sponsorship landscape, sometimes moving faster than formal regulations. Many esports organizations were forced to reconsider their gambling partnerships in response to these changes, particularly those heavily dependent on Twitch for content distribution.

Netherlands and Belgium Loot Box Regulations

In 2018, the Netherlands Gaming Authority and the Belgian Gaming Commission both determined that certain implementations of loot boxes in video games constituted gambling under their respective laws. This classification required game publishers to either obtain gambling licenses or modify their games to comply with local regulations.

Several major publishers, including Valve, EA, and Blizzard, modified their games for these markets, disabling the purchase of loot boxes or revealing their contents before purchase to avoid running afoul of gambling regulations. These actions highlighted the increasing regulatory scrutiny of gambling-adjacent mechanics within games themselves, with potential implications for esports competitions featuring these titles.

The European Commission has subsequently facilitated discussions about harmonizing approaches to loot boxes across EU member states, while consumer protection agencies in several countries have launched investigations into these mechanics. This evolving regulatory environment has prompted many publishers to reevaluate their monetization strategies, potentially influencing the design of future esports titles.

Australia’s Interactive Gambling Amendment

Australia’s Interactive Gambling Amendment Act 2017 strengthened the country’s online gambling regulations, prohibiting unlicensed operators from offering services to Australian residents and enhancing enforcement capabilities. This amendment had significant implications for esports betting and sponsorships, creating clearer guidelines for legitimate operators while targeting illegal services.

The amendment specifically addressed “in-play” betting on sporting events, restricting such offerings to telephone or in-person channels rather than online platforms. This restriction potentially applies to esports betting, though the classification of esports as sports for regulatory purposes remains somewhat ambiguous in the Australian context.

Following this regulatory change, several international gambling operators withdrew from the Australian market, while others obtained appropriate licenses and adjusted their operations to comply with the new requirements. This shift influenced the gambling sponsorship landscape in Australian esports, with organizations becoming more cautious about partnerships with operators not properly licensed for the Australian market.

Emerging Best Practices

As the legal landscape continues to evolve, several best practices have emerged for esports organizations and gambling operators seeking to establish compliant sponsorship relationships:

Comprehensive Age Verification

Implementing robust age verification systems has become essential for gambling operators sponsoring esports events, particularly in jurisdictions with strict youth protection regulations. These systems typically combine multiple verification methods:

• Document verification using government-issued identification
• Credit card checks to confirm adult financial capacity
• Address verification against electoral rolls or other databases
• Biometric verification for high-risk cases

For esports broadcasts featuring gambling content, age-gating technologies have been implemented across various platforms. YouTube’s age restriction features allow content creators to limit access to viewers who are signed in and above the appropriate age threshold, while Twitch has implemented similar capabilities for mature content.

Tournament organizers have developed broadcast policies that restrict gambling-related content to specific segments with appropriate warnings and age verification prompts, separating this content from general tournament coverage that might reach younger viewers.

Transparent Disclosure

Clear disclosure of sponsorship relationships, particularly for influencers and content creators, has become a regulatory expectation in many jurisdictions. The FTC’s endorsement guidelines in the United States, the ASA’s CAP Code in the United Kingdom, and similar regulations in other markets require transparent disclosure of material connections between promoters and the services they endorse.

In practice, this has led to more explicit sponsorship disclosures in esports content, including:

• Verbal acknowledgments during streams and videos
• Clear visual labeling of sponsored content
• Prominent #ad or #sponsored tags on social media posts
• Detailed disclosures regarding the nature of partnership agreements

Many esports organizations have developed internal policies requiring standardized disclosure practices across all sponsored content, often exceeding minimum regulatory requirements to ensure compliance across all potential jurisdictions.

Jurisdiction-Specific Activation Strategies

Developing region-specific approaches to sponsorship activation, tailored to local regulatory requirements, allows gambling operators to maintain compliance across markets with varying restrictions. This approach might include:

• Creating different broadcast feeds for different regions, with gambling content excluded from feeds targeting jurisdictions with stricter regulations
• Implementing geolocation technology to display different website content and advertisements based on viewer location
• Developing separate social media strategies for different regional accounts
• Tailoring responsible gambling messaging to reflect the specific requirements of each jurisdiction

Major tournament organizers like ESL and BLAST have implemented sophisticated region-specific activation strategies for their gambling partners, allowing them to maximize sponsorship value while maintaining regulatory compliance across their global audiences.

Educational Components

Some gambling sponsors have incorporated responsible gambling education into their esports partnerships, addressing regulatory concerns while promoting responsible behavior. These educational initiatives include:

• Dedicated segments during broadcasts highlighting responsible gambling practices
• Resources and tools for managing gambling activity, such as deposit limits and self-exclusion options
• Partnerships with organizations specializing in gambling addiction prevention and treatment
• Training for esports personalities and content creators on responsible discussion of gambling topics

Betway’s partnerships with teams including Ninjas in Pyjamas and PSG.LGD have included educational content about responsible gambling, while GG.BET has developed resources specifically targeted at esports audiences through its partnerships with tournaments including ESL events.

Future Outlook

The legal landscape for gambling sponsorships in esports continues to evolve rapidly, with several key trends likely to shape future developments:

Regulatory Harmonization

Efforts toward greater regulatory harmonization across jurisdictions may simplify compliance for international esports events and their sponsors. Within the European Union, discussions about creating more consistent approaches to gambling regulation have been ongoing, though progress remains limited by member states’ desire to maintain control over gambling policy.

The International Betting Integrity Association (IBIA) has advocated for more standardized approaches to sports betting regulation, including provisions specifically addressing esports. Their efforts include developing model regulatory frameworks and best practices that could potentially influence national regulations.

In the United States, there have been periodic discussions about federal legislation to create more uniform sports betting regulations across states, though such efforts face significant political challenges. Some industry groups have proposed voluntary standards for esports betting and sponsorships that could potentially establish de facto harmonization even without formal regulatory alignment.

Technological Solutions

Advanced age verification technologies and geo-filtering capabilities may enable more targeted sponsorship activations that comply with varying regional requirements. Developments in this area include:

• AI-powered age estimation systems that can assess viewers’ ages through camera feeds
• Blockchain-based identity verification solutions that protect privacy while confirming age
• More sophisticated geolocation technologies that can accurately determine viewer location at a granular level
• Advanced content moderation tools that can automatically filter gambling content based on viewer profiles

These technological advances could potentially enable more personalized approaches to gambling sponsorship activation, showing content only to viewers who meet appropriate age and jurisdictional criteria while maintaining regulatory compliance.

Publisher-Led Standards

Game publishers may increasingly establish industry standards for gambling sponsorships, potentially creating more uniform expectations across different esports ecosystems. Riot Games has already taken steps in this direction with its global sponsorship policies for League of Legends and Valorant, while Epic Games has implemented strict controls for Fortnite competitions.

These publisher-led initiatives could potentially establish baseline standards that exceed minimum regulatory requirements, simplifying compliance for tournament organizers and teams while addressing concerns about audience protection. Industry associations like the Esports Integrity Commission (ESIC) have also developed guidelines addressing gambling sponsorships, potentially contributing to the establishment of industry-wide standards.

Responsible Gambling Focus

Regulatory emphasis on responsible gambling is likely to intensify, with requirements for educational components in gambling sponsorships potentially becoming more common. Regulators in various jurisdictions have increasingly focused on gambling’s potential social harms, leading to stricter requirements regarding responsible gambling messaging and practices.

For esports specifically, this trend could lead to more integrated responsible gambling initiatives within sponsored content, moving beyond simple disclaimers to more substantive educational efforts. Some gambling operators have proactively embraced this approach, recognizing that demonstrating commitment to responsible practices may help secure a more sustainable regulatory environment for their partnerships.

Integration with Media Rights

As the esports industry matures, gambling sponsorships may become more integrated with broader media rights packages, similar to developments in traditional sports. This could potentially include:

• Gambling operators securing exclusive data rights for odds creation
• Integration of betting content within official broadcasts through dedicated segments
• Development of betting-focused alternative broadcasts for adult viewers
• More sophisticated fantasy gaming products officially sanctioned by leagues and publishers

This evolution would require careful navigation of regulatory requirements, but could potentially create more structured and sustainable models for gambling industry involvement in esports.

Conclusion

The legal landscape for gambling sponsorships in esports remains complex and dynamic, characterized by jurisdictional variations, evolving regulatory frameworks, and the unique challenges presented by the digital and global nature of esports.

For esports organizations, game publishers, and gambling operators navigating this landscape, a thorough understanding of applicable regulations, commitment to responsible practices, and adaptability to regulatory changes will be essential. The industry’s relatively young audience demographic creates particular challenges that require thoughtful approaches to sponsorship activation and content distribution.

As the esports industry continues to mature, clearer regulatory frameworks may emerge, potentially providing greater certainty for stakeholders while maintaining appropriate protections for vulnerable audiences. Industry-led initiatives, including publisher policies and voluntary standards, will likely play an important role in shaping these developments alongside formal regulations.

In the meantime, a cautious approach that prioritizes compliance with the most stringent applicable regulations, incorporates robust age verification, and emphasizes transparent disclosure represents the most prudent path forward in this evolving legal environment. Organizations that can successfully navigate these complexities while demonstrating commitment to responsible practices will be best positioned to benefit from the growing intersection between esports and the gambling industry.