The line between inspiration and imitation in the gaming industry has again sparked debate, this time involving Tencent’s title, Light of Motiram, and Sony’s Horizon Zero Dawn. The controversy highlights the ongoing tension in intellectual property (IP) law within gaming, echoing past cases like Palworld vs. Pokémon. Here, we explore these issues, their legal implications, and what they mean for the future of game development.

The Allegations Against Light of Motiram

Tencent’s Light of Motiram, bears striking visual and thematic similarities to Sony’s Horizon series. Both games feature post-apocalyptic settings where players navigate lush environments populated by mechanical animals. Critics have pointed out uncanny resemblances, from the aesthetic of mechanised creatures to thematic overlaps like “nature meets machine”​. For a side by side comparison, see here .

While Light of Motiram distinguishes itself by introducing survival mechanics, such as team-based gameplay and base-building, it doesn’t escape comparisons. This raises the question: at what point does inspiration become actionable under IP law?

Fans have drawn parallels between this situation and the ongoing legal battle between Nintendo and Pocketpair over Palworld, suggesting Sony might consider legal action for intellectual property infringement. While Light of Motiram incorporates some original features, the resemblance in core design has led many to accuse Tencent of unoriginality and blatant copying. Neither Sony nor Tencent has officially commented on these accusations or hinted at legal steps so far.

A Familiar Pattern: Palworld vs. Pokémon

Tencent’s predicament mirrors the legal battle between Nintendo and the creators of Palworld. The latter faced allegations of patent infringement (among other IP infringements). Their game, which shares visual and mechanical similarities with Pokémon, has been called “Pokémon with guns” due to its concept of capturing and using creatures in combat and other tasks.

Nintendo and The Pokémon Company filed a lawsuit in September 2024 in Japan, claiming that Palworld infringes on patents related to mechanics like capturing creatures using a throwable object, visual indicators for capture success rates, and riding creatures in an open world. These patents stem from a broader set filed in 2021, before Palworld’s official release

There’s growing speculation about potential legal issues between Sony and Tencent. Given Sony’s history of protecting its intellectual property and the attention this controversy is garnering, a legal dispute similar to the Nintendo-Pocketpair case could emerge, especially if Light of Motiram proves successful upon release. For now, the gaming community is watching closely to see if Sony takes action or if Tencent modifies the game to address the criticisms.

Concluding Remarks

Legal disputes like these, underscore the challenges of fostering creativity while protecting original work. Developers tread a fine line when drawing inspiration from popular titles. While derivative works can expand genre boundaries, they risk infringing on protected IP, leading to costly litigation.

Whether or not Sony files a lawsuit (most probably will do so), the discourse surrounding this case will likely influence stakeholders’ understanding of the balance between innovation and IP protection—a critical issue as the esports and gaming industries continue to grow.

Light of Motiram – Steam

The Routledge Handbook of Esports edited by Seth Jenny, Nicolas Besombes, Tom Brock, Amanda Cote and Tobias Scholz, offers a comprehensive and interdisciplinary exploration of one of the fastest-growing sectors in contemporary sports and entertainment. This handbook is an essential resource for students, researchers, and industry professionals alike.

The structure of the book is both logical and engaging, divided into ten key themes that address the multifaceted nature of esports. Each of the 62 chapters, authored by 93 leading academics and industry specialists, presents rigorous research, practical examples, and case studies that illuminate the current landscape of esports. The themes range from foundational definitions and historical context to critical discussions on players, business management, and the future directions of esports.

Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis of the The Routledge Handbook of Esports

Section 1: Introduction to Esports

The opening chapters provide a solid grounding in the subject, notably Chapter 1.2, which tackles the complex task of defining esports. Nothelfer, Jenny, and Besombes navigate the nuances of this definition with finesse, distinguishing between recreational gaming and competitive esports. Their proposed definition serves as a cornerstone for the entire handbook, establishing a clear framework for subsequent discussions.

In exploring the history of global esports, Jin and Besombes highlight significant technological milestones and cultural shifts that have propelled esports from niche competitions to a global spectacle. Their chronological account, pinpointing key transitions since the late 1950s, contextualizes the evolution of esports within broader societal changes.

Further enriching this exploration is Chapter 1.4, which meticulously outlines the diverse stakeholders within the esports ecosystem. Carrillo Vera and Antón’s depiction of the interdependencies among players, publishers, broadcasters, and fans emphasizes the complexity of this burgeoning industry. This holistic view is crucial for understanding how various entities collaborate and compete in the esports landscape.

Chapters focusing on esports genres and the role of game developers provide valuable insights into the mechanics of the industry. Hamer and Besombes categorize game genres with precision, while Ashton delves into the evolving responsibilities of game publishers, notably their transition to the “Game as a Service” model. These discussions reflect the dynamic nature of esports and its continual adaptation to technological advancements.

Section 2: Esports Research

The second section of the handbook shifts focus to esports research methodology, a particularly notable feature as it addresses the nascent state of academic inquiry in this field. Baker, Sharpe, and Jenny’s overview of current research topics emphasizes the multidisciplinary nature of esports studies and suggests a robust framework for organizing future research efforts. While Jenny, Harris, Scholz and Besombes discuss the organisations, Labs/Centres and Journals related to Esports research, Campbell, Jenny, Cregan and Smithies provide general recommendations for Esports research. The call for more rigorous methodologies, including randomized controlled trials and qualitative approaches, is both timely and necessary as the field matures, as Cote, Foxman and Law highlight in 2.5.

Each chapter contributes to a greater understanding of the methodologies employed in esports research, providing practical recommendations and critical insights. For instance, Macey and Hamari’s examination of survey methodologies, along with DiFrancisco-Donoghue and Varga’s focus on experimental designs, equips researchers with essential tools to explore this vibrant field.

Section 3 – Esports Players

This section of the handbook highlights the vital role of players in the esports ecosystem, examining various facets crucial for their development, support, and sustainability. Featuring insights from both industry experts and academics, it presents evidence-based strategies aimed at enhancing player performance while prioritizing overall wellness. Chapter 3.2 by Hong and Wünsch offers an in-depth look at the daily routines and pressures faced by esports players, providing a comprehensive overview of their professional lives and the expectations from various stakeholders.

Jenny explores the essential skills required for elite esports performance, emphasizing the importance of physical coordination, mental acuity, and teamwork in competitive environments. Chapter 3.4 by Varga, Scholz, and Tan delves into the use of data to assess and improve player performance, highlighting both the strengths and limitations of analytics in capturing the nuances of communication and team dynamics. Watson, Jenny, and Johnson discuss the multifaceted roles of esports coaches, offering practical advice on coaching philosophies and educational pathways to enhance coaching effectiveness. Chapter 3.6 by Swettenham, Abbot, and Leis emphasizes the significance of mental fortitude in esports, presenting strategies for improving team communication and guidance on seeking psychological support. Migliore provides practical recommendations for physical activity, sleep, nutrition, and mental health, addressing common issues like stress and gaming addiction.

Chapter 3.8 by McGee, Ho, and Jenny highlights common injuries in esports and advocate for ergonomic practices to enhance player safety and performance. Meissner shares valuable insights on how to support children through various stages of their esports journey, from early involvement to professional aspirations. Chapter 3.10 by Fisackerly outlines the journey from casual to professional play, noting the impact of collegiate esports systems and the challenges players face in their careers.

Section 4 – Esports Business and Management

Section 4 of the handbook dives into the commercial landscape of esports, examining the business and management practices that underpin this rapidly growing industry. While esports have attracted entrepreneurs and investors, it has also faced challenges, leading to calls for more sustainable business models. This section seeks to bridge traditional business principles with the unique dynamics of esports, offering readers valuable insights into various aspects of the field.

Chapter 4.2 by Parshakov and Barajas explores the financial frameworks and business models that drive the esports industry. It highlights diverse revenue streams and cost structures, alongside the evolution of prize money, showcasing the financial maturation of esports and investment opportunities within publicly traded companies.

Gentile introduces the discipline of esports management, emphasizing the need for effective managerial and leadership practices in this burgeoning landscape. The chapter reviews organizational structures within esports teams and leagues, providing a solid foundation for aspiring managers.

Chapter 4.4 by Helmefalk, Berndt, McCauley, Borg, and Erlandsson serves as a practical guide to orchestrating offline esports events. It covers key processes and stakeholder expectations, equipping readers with insights to successfully plan and execute tournaments.

Kauweloa explores the evolving architecture of esports venues, categorizing them into three types. The chapter addresses the design and technical considerations that influence venue management, urging future research to rethink conventional definitions of esports arenas. Chapter 4.6 by Becka, Antón, Vera, and Ruera examines the intersection of esports and tourism, identifying how esports events can enhance city branding and attract tourists. It highlights nine global “esports tourist capitals” and the potential for integrating esports within the hospitality sector.

McCauley and Baker dissect the marketing strategies shaping the esports landscape. They analyse consumer behaviours and innovative branding techniques, offering a comprehensive overview of team and player branding as well as digital marketing practices. Chapter 4.8 by Pizzo and Hedlund delves into the critical role of sponsorships in esports, examining the relationship between endemic and non-endemic brands. It emphasizes the importance of authentic engagement to resonate with esports audiences and provides recommendations for maximizing sponsorship effectiveness.

Mitchell, Möglich, and Ritacco explore the evolving field of public relations within esports, discussing challenges and best practices. They highlight effective communication and crisis management strategies that are essential for navigating the complex PR landscape. Chapter 4.10 by Büßecker, Lenke, Ruhland, Vitale, and Scholz investigates unique HR management practices in esports, from talent acquisition to organizational culture. It emphasizes the need for tailored HR approaches to foster engagement and adapt to the industry’s distinctive demands.

Section 5 – Esports Media and Communication

Section 5 of the handbook delves into the pivotal realm of media and communication within esports, illustrating how digital athleticism is conveyed to audiences worldwide. This segment combines insights from seasoned practitioners and scholars, providing a thorough exploration of esports journalism, production, streaming, spectatorship, and fandom.

Chapter 5.2 by Wolf and Cote traces the evolution of esports journalism, detailing its transition from niche forums to mainstream coverage. The authors examine the challenges faced by traditional media, such as ESPN and Yahoo, in grasping the esports narrative, while also highlighting the rise of content creators as an alternative source of news and insights.

Knutson and Liebig discuss the intricate processes behind esports broadcasts, focusing on the livestreaming ecosystem. They outline the various roles involved in production and draw comparisons with traditional sports broadcasting, emphasizing the unique elements of digital content creation, audience engagement, and the technologies that drive profitability.

Smethers provides a deep dive into streaming platforms like Twitch and YouTube, along with traditional TV networks. Smethers explores monetization strategies, rights management, and the engagement dynamics unique to each platform, shedding light on the financial structures that support esports broadcasting.

Välisalo, Brock, and Law examine the evolution of esports audiences, from casual gatherings to structured events. They analyse demographics, motivations, and engagement practices, emphasizing the importance of real-time interaction and data insights in enhancing the viewer experience for both in-person and online audiences.

Jarrett explores the profound influence of fandom on the esports ecosystem, highlighting the symbiotic relationship between the industry and its fans. He discusses the origins of esports genres from fan adaptations and introduces theoretical frameworks from cultural studies to analyse fan identities, creativity, and the dynamic interactions that define esports fandom.

Section 6 – Esports Education

Section 6 of the handbook explores the integration of esports into educational settings, addressing both instructional and competitive dimensions. As a relatively new phenomenon, this section presents cutting-edge insights into how esports can motivate learning, improve student retention, develop digital literacy skills, and enhance essential life skills such as communication and teamwork.

Chapter 6.2 by Jenny, Gawrysiak, O’Hagan, and Besombes provides a global perspective on esports education at both secondary and higher education levels. The authors clarify a common misconception that esports education solely focuses on gaming skills, emphasizing instead the importance of acquiring knowledge relevant to various esports and gaming industry careers, such as management and media. They present a detailed inventory of academic programs, noting that most focus on preparing students for business-related roles in esports. The authors outline essential characteristics of effective programs, including qualified faculty and industry connections, while acknowledging existing scepticism about esports education’s sustainability.

Foxman, Jenny, Cote, King, and Becka discuss the environment and challenges faced by collegiate esports teams, highlighting both student-driven clubs and institution-supported varsity programs. Key issues include diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as the lack of standardization across programs. The authors provide practical advice for establishing a collegiate esports program, along with insights from interviews that capture different regional perspectives.

Harvey offers a practical guide for developing competitive esports programs in primary and secondary education. The chapter emphasizes how esports can foster digital literacy and provide a low-risk environment for students to engage with technology while having fun. As students advance, competitions become more structured, and considerations such as staffing, resources, and game selection become crucial. Harvey advocates for a balanced approach that combines education, sport, and gaming, empowering students through their participation in esports.

Section 7 – Critical Concerns in Esports

Section 7 of the handbook tackles the complex challenges and pressing issues within the esports ecosystem, shedding light on eight key areas that demand further research and attention from both participants and organizations. This section provides a comprehensive overview of the critical concerns that shape the future of esports, including governance, ethics, inclusion, and environmental sustainability.

Chapter 7.2 by Abanazir and Shinohara addresses the rapid growth of esports outpacing its regulatory frameworks. The authors highlight the intricate relationship between game developers and third-party organizers, noting the lack of established governing bodies and the resulting fluid legal environment. They suggest that supranational entities like the EU could play a pivotal role in establishing coherent guidelines for esports governance.

Jenny, Schelfhout, and Besombes explore the potential inclusion of esports in the Olympic Games, outlining the challenges and opportunities involved. The authors stress the fragmented nature of the esports landscape, which lacks a legitimate international governing body, a significant hurdle for integration into the Olympic framework. However, they remain hopeful about the possibility of esports participating in the 2028 Games in Los Angeles.

Brock and Johnson investigate the role of gambling in esports, particularly focusing on contentious practices like loot boxes and skin betting. These forms of gambling raise ethical concerns and have led to public scandals and regulatory scrutiny. They emphasize that new technologies complicate the gambling ecosystem, introducing both opportunities and challenges.

Partin discusses the ethical dilemmas surrounding cheating in esports, arguing that it undermines the integrity of competition. The chapter examines the socio-technical factors that contribute to cheating, suggesting that players’ social and economic circumstances can influence their decisions.

Chapter 7.6 by Frommel and Mandryk delves into the pervasive issue of toxicity within esports communities. The authors highlight the ambiguity of the term and the challenges it presents in creating effective enforcement mechanisms. They discuss efforts by organizations to categorize toxic behaviours and explore the role of AI moderation in promoting safer online environments.

Friman, Ruotsalainen, and Ståhl tackle the cultural barriers that alienate women and minorities in esports, challenging the stereotype of the “esports athlete” as predominantly white and male. They advocate for initiatives that promote diversity and equity, highlighting organizations working to support underrepresented players.

Chapter 7.8 by Hassan, Baltzar, and Kämäräinen examines the barriers faced by gamers with disabilities and the need for accommodations. The authors argue for a more nuanced understanding of disability that considers intersecting factors such as socio-economic status and race, and they draw parallels to the Paralympics as a potential model for inclusivity.

Hiltscher and Möglich situate esports within broader environmental challenges, advocating for corporate social responsibility (CSR) to drive sustainability in the industry. They encourage esports organizations to invest in renewable energy and align with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to reduce their carbon footprint.

Section 8 – Global Esports Cultures

Section 8 of the Routledge Handbook of Esports offers a fascinating exploration of the diverse esports ecosystems around the world. While esports is often viewed through the lens of its origins in East Asia and North America, this section emphasizes the unique cultural, social, and economic factors shaping esports in various global regions. Each chapter provides critical insights into how esports is developing and operating differently across the globe, highlighting both commonalities and distinct differences.

Chapter 8.2 by El Borno and Mokhtar traces the evolution of esports in the MENA region, from grassroots tournaments in cyber cafes to its current professional landscape. The authors discuss significant challenges faced, such as infrastructure and investment, while also showcasing success stories like the Intel Arabian Cup, illustrating the region’s potential for growth.

Focusing on East Asia as the heart of the esports industry, Jin and Kim expand the conversation to Southeast and South Asia. The authors emphasize regional nuances, fan culture, and emerging esports markets, offering a holistic view of Asia’s complex esports landscape beyond just the established powers like China and South Korea.

Koskimaa examines the dual trajectory of European esports: its integration into broader digital entertainment and the sportification of competitive gaming. The chapter highlights regional variations, popular titles, and the impact of local fandoms, providing a comprehensive picture of Europe’s diverse esports culture.

Micallef and Formosa discuss the mixed history of esports in Oceania, particularly in Australia and New Zealand, noting both advancements and setbacks, such as the cancellation of the Oceanic Pro League. The authors identify unique challenges, like geographic barriers and market size, while emphasizing the growth of university esports programs as a bright spot.

Chapter 8.6 by Scholl and Stout offers a critical analysis of the North American esports scene, detailing the influential role of organizations like Major League Gaming. It explores the intricate relationships among game publishers, streaming platforms, and traditional sports leagues, highlighting the interconnectedness of esports cultures in the U.S. and Canada.

Focusing on Brazil, Argentina, Peru, and Chile, Macedo, Kurtz, and Becka discuss the growth and diversity of esports in South America. They address challenges such as governance and gender equity while identifying trends that could shape the future of esports in the region.

Overall, this section effectively captures the rich tapestry of global esports cultures, emphasizing that while esports is a worldwide phenomenon, its expression is deeply influenced by local contexts. The inclusion of tables summarizing key leagues, publishers, and games further enhances the readers’ understanding of each region’s esports landscape.

Section 9 – Esports Future Directions

Section 9 delves into the uncertain future of esports, acknowledging the inherent unpredictability of the industry. Jenny, Brock, Scholz, Cote and Besombes provide a thought-provoking analysis of potential trends and sustainability challenges facing esports, encouraging readers to engage in discussions about its direction.

The chapter begins by reflecting on recent developments, such as the dissolution of the Overwatch League and changes in collegiate esports structures. These events exemplify the volatility within the esports ecosystem and the difficulty of making long-term predictions. By examining past predictions, the authors provide a foundation for understanding how external factors, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, can drastically alter the trajectory of esports. The authors emphasize the need for sustainable practices across economic, social, and environmental dimensions. They argue that without addressing these sustainability challenges, the future of esports remains precarious, echoing concerns about overreliance on sponsorship and the need for diversified revenue streams. Predictions regarding future technological advancements in esports venues, streaming, and training highlight the importance of adapting to evolving consumer preferences and market demands.

Section 10 – Key Terms Definitions

Section 10 offers essential definitions of key terms relevant to the esports field, providing a valuable resource for both newcomers and seasoned professionals. This section enhances the handbook’s accessibility and understanding, ensuring that readers are equipped with a solid foundation of terminology as they engage with the broader discussions presented in the previous sections.

Conclusion

The Routledge Handbook of Esports provides a comprehensive examination of the esports industry, from its diverse global cultures to the challenges and uncertainties it faces. The insights and analyses presented are essential for understanding the current state and future possibilities of esports, making it a vital resource for anyone interested in this rapidly evolving field.

While the handbook touches on esports governance and law in Chapter 7.2, a more comprehensive examination of esports law could be beneficial. For example, adeeper dive into how intellectual property laws affect game developers, players, and tournament organisers, contractual agreements, labour law considerations, legal implications of streaming and content creation, and dispute resolution mechanisms would provide a more thorough analysis of the legal challenges and frameworks within the esports industry.

Introduction

Riot Games has launched a new arbitration mechanism for resolving disputes within the competitive ecosystems of League of Legends and VALORANT in the EMEA region. The system, developed with Martens Rechtsanwälte, is intended to address financial and contractual conflicts among players, teams, and coaches, promising a cost-effective, streamlined approach. Notably, while the mechanism is voluntary, it uses a closed list of arbitrators, and details of its rules have not been published yet—Esports Legal News (ELN) plans to inquire further and publish a detailed analysis once they are available.

Starting today, players, coaches and teams in Tier 1 and 2 Valorant/League of Legends can access the Dispute Resolution for Riot Games’ Esports in EMEA for a variety of issues they are experiencing, including those related to unpaid salaries, bonuses, prize money and transfer disputes.

However, the mechanism’s introduction raises important questions concerning its compatibility with EU competition law, particularly Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Analyzing this mechanism under the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) findings in the recent ISU (International Skating Union) case helps us examine if Riot’s approach might restrict competition or abuse a dominant market position.

The arbitration framework introduced by Riot includes distinctive features meant to streamline resolution while ensuring cost-accessibility for participants:

1. Closed Arbitrator Pool: Only 14 arbitrators, chosen for their expertise in sports law and arbitration, are eligible to preside over cases. Martens Rechtsanwälte will oversee the arbitration, with responsibility for selecting arbitrators and managing independence from Riot. As David Menz from Martens explained, “The arbitration body will be a completely separate body from Riot… [Martens will] handle both team vs. team disputes and team vs. player disputes.”
2. Cost Structure and Financial Aid: The system imposes a handling fee ranging from EUR 500 to EUR 4,000, depending on the dispute’s value, as well as an arbitrator’s fee between EUR 1,000 and EUR 5,000, split equally between claimant and respondent. Recognizing financial constraints that may impact Tier 2 participants, Riot has set up a Legal Aid Fund to cover costs for those unable to afford arbitration. However, the fund’s size and eligibility criteria remain unclear, and Esports News UK has sought clarification from Riot on these specifics.
3. Process and Equity-Based Decisions: The arbitration allows only one written submission per party, with no hearing, aiming to expedite proceedings. Decisions are rendered ex aequo et bono—“according to equity”—prioritizing fairness over strict legal interpretations. Menz highlighted this equity-based focus, explaining, “If the arbitrator finds that the strict enforcement of the contractual terms would lead to an unjust and unfair result, the arbitrator may apply general principles of equity and fairness to come to a better solution.”

Given these design choices, the arbitration mechanism presents several potential benefits but also opens the door to legal scrutiny, particularly with respect to EU competition laws governing market dominance and anti-competitive practices.

The ISU Case and Its Implications for Riot’s Arbitration System

The recent ISU v. Commission case (C-124/21 P), decidedby the CJEU, provides a crucial precedent for examining Riot’s arbitration approach. The ISU case involved the International Skating Union’s rules requiring prior authorization for non-ISU events and imposing eligibility restrictions on athletes who participated in unapproved competitions. The European Commission found ISU’s rules anti-competitive, concluding they effectively limited athletes’ choices and reinforced the ISU’s dominant position. The CJEU upheld this view, emphasizing that rules which restrict participation in alternative events could distort market competition under Article 101 TFEU.

Applying this precedent to Riot’s arbitration system, three key concerns arise:

1. Article 101 TFEU: Potential Anti-Competitive Agreements: The ISU case underscored the impact of restrictive rules that prevent athletes from freely choosing between competitions. Riot’s arbitration mechanism, while nominally voluntary, might exert indirect pressure on stakeholders to use this system. Guerrero noted that Riot intends to standardize arbitration across the ecosystem, with a goal of integrating arbitration clauses in over 80% of employment contracts within a few years. Although Riot’s mechanism does not explicitly restrict access to other forums, such a goal could limit alternatives, particularly given Riot’s market influence and provision of financial aid for arbitration. A closed arbitrator pool could further reinforce the perception that Riot’s system is the default or preferred forum for resolving disputes, subtly limiting the choice of alternative venues.If Riot’s arbitration mechanism were to become a de facto standard, it might risk contravening Article 101 by limiting competition between dispute resolution systems.
2. Article 102 TFEU: Dominance and Market Power: Article 102 TFEU prohibits the abuse of dominant positions. In the ISU case, the CJEU found that ISU’s eligibility restrictions hindered athletes’ freedom to compete, an abuse of ISU’s significant control over the skating market. Riot’s arbitration system could similarly raise concerns under Article 102, given Riot’s leading role in the esports market. The closed arbitrator pool, combined with financial incentives, might create a perception that Riot is using its influence to channel disputes through its preferred mechanism. While not a direct abuse, the limited choice in arbitrator selection may lead stakeholders to question the independence and fairness of outcomes. Thus, Riot’s control over both the arbitrator pool and the terms of financial support warrants scrutiny to ensure it does not disproportionately disadvantage those who prefer to use other arbitration or litigation avenues.
3. Transparency Concerns and the Lack of Published Rules: A lack of transparency can exacerbate concerns about competitive fairness. The rules governing Riot’s arbitration mechanism have not yet been published, making it difficult for stakeholders to assess the system’s procedural safeguards and potential biases. The closed list of arbitrators, combined with unpublished procedural details, could contribute to skepticism regarding the system’s impartiality and reliability. Given Riot’s influence, full transparency about how disputes are handled and how arbitrators are selected is essential to mitigate competitive concerns and ensure trust in the system.

Financial and Procedural Concerns

The arbitration system’s variable cost structure is designed to make it accessible, especially to smaller teams or less financially resourced participants. However, reliance on Riot’s financial assistance could create an indirect economic pressure for stakeholders to use Riot’s system. While Riot’s financial aid may enhance accessibility, it could also lead participants to perceive this as a subtle form of encouragement, potentially reinforcing Riot’s influence in EMEA esports dispute resolution.

This indirect influence on stakeholders’ choices raises concerns that the system might subtly limit access to other dispute resolution venues. Moreover, the CJEU emphasized in ISU that any attempt to constrain freedom of choice or impose exclusivity indirectly could amount to a breach of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. Riot’s arbitration mechanism, while not explicitly exclusive, could risk a similar interpretation if it is seen to influence participants toward its system rather than leaving them free to select from a competitive array of dispute resolution options.

Enforcement of Awards and the New York Convention

Enforcement of arbitration awards is a critical factor in any dispute resolution mechanism, particularly in international contexts. Riot’s arbitration awards could potentially be enforced under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The Convention, to which most EMEA countries are signatories, allows for cross-border enforcement of arbitral awards, provided they meet certain criteria, such as being issued in a recognized seat of arbitration.

However, it remains unclear if Riot’s mechanism allows parties to choose the seat of arbitration, which could affect the applicability and ease of enforcement under the New York Convention. Without clarity on the seat of arbitration, stakeholders may face challenges in enforcing awards, particularly if the seat is defaulted to a jurisdiction with complex enforcement barriers.

Horyna addressed concerns over enforceability within Riot’s ecosystem, explaining, “If [a party] does not pay… [the winning party] has two options. They can either go to ordinary court… or [request Riot to enforce it]. We can then apply sporting and financial sanctions on the party, if that’s a player, coach, or team.” This internal enforcement mechanism could help ensure compliance but does not replace the need for enforceability under broader legal frameworks like the New York Convention, especially for awards that might involve stakeholders outside Riot’s ecosystem.

The Broader Impact on the Esports Industry

Riot’s arbitration initiative introduces a significant level of professionalization in EMEA esports, with potential to create contractual stability and more efficient dispute resolution. As Whalen Rozelle, Riot’s Chief Operating Officer for Esports, stated, “This initiative will better serve our players, coaches, and teams across EMEA, providing them access to legal support should they need it.” Riot’s emphasis on arbitration in player contracts also reflects a push for long-term stability, as noted by Audrey Cech, Riot’s Global Esports Rules & Compliance representative: “We want to incentivize that when someone is signing a new contract, there is this new arbitration clause… This arbitration clause is a massive advantage, in my opinion, it’s really beneficial to teams.”

Despite these positive intentions, the system’s closed arbitrator pool, lack of published rules, and ambiguity over the seat of arbitration raise potential competitive and procedural concerns. Drawing on the CJEU’s ISU precedent, Riot must ensure that its arbitration mechanism does not inadvertently restrict stakeholders’ freedom to pursue alternative dispute forums. Transparent rules, a diversified arbitrator pool, and flexibility in choosing the seat of arbitration could address these concerns and align the initiative more closely with EU competition principles.

Conclusion: Riot’s Arbitration System and EU Competition Law Compliance

Riot’s arbitration mechanism presents a promising development in esports governance but also poses several competition law considerations. Drawing on the CJEU’s findings in the ISU case, a voluntary arbitration mechanism with a closed arbitrator pool and financial incentives could indirectly limit competitive freedom, especially if it discourages stakeholders from pursuing alternatives. As long as Riot maintains the non-exclusive nature of its system and takes steps to increase transparency—particularly by publishing its rules and expanding the arbitrator pool—it may align more closely with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

Esports Legal News will continue to monitor developments regarding the rules governing Riot’s arbitration system and will publish a detailed analysis once these rules become available. Meanwhile, Riot’s future modifications and oversight mechanisms will play a critical role in ensuring the arbitration system serves as a fair, impartial, and competitive model for esports dispute resolution.

Source: Esports Insider