A new training session for students at Gaming Campus (Lyon) focused on analyzing the legal issues and challenges related to the development of the esports sector. Aimed at students in their final year of studies, who are completing work-study placements within professional esports organizations – event organizers, esports clubs, and content producers – the session provided an opportunity to review the legal framework governing esports in France since 2016 and then to address the legal issues faced by the various stakeholders in esports. Topics covered included analyzing contractual relationships between players and organizations, monetization strategies for video game publishers, and the administrative obligations of event organizers.
The various contemporary challenges facing esports have led to discussions on the general terms and conditions of video game titles, the positioning of social networks on gaming topics, particularly X, Twitch, YouTube, and more recently Kickstarter, and the role of mobile gaming platforms and virtual reality systems.
Building upon the seminar’s content, the legal publication “Esports Professions Law Fact Sheets,” published in November 2022, effectively addresses the questions and concerns of students, some of whom are completing work-study programs in leading esports organizations.
Guided by a professionalizing pedagogy, the students selected projects and analytical topics that provide them with genuine expertise directly applicable to industry professionals.
Protecting the health of esports players
Similar in many ways to athletes, the working conditions of competitive video game players expose them to numerous risks to their physical and, especially, mental health. The widespread occurrence of stress and burnout raises the question of how esports players’ health is managed by their professional partners.
Despite the legal framework introduced in 2016 with the Law for a Digital Republic, the use of esports player employment contracts is largely rejected by all stakeholders in the sector. These contracts, however, offer the protections of the Labor Code regarding employee safety and security. Conversely, the status of service provider, currently used predominantly, if not exclusively, does not, in principle, guarantee any protection to players in this area.
Some organizations have shown a willingness to provide elements in this direction aimed at optimizing their performance – mental coaches, doctors, etc. The question of the potential liability of the stakeholders involved – agencies, esports clubs, organizers, and/or publishers – remains thorny and complex.
Dopa/Apdo, the anti-esports player
Jeong “Apdo” Sang-gil is a Korean video game player who gained significant notoriety in the gaming industry through his social media content. His exceptional skills—particularly in solo queue—and his Elo boosting services made him a leading figure in the “League of Legends” video game.
Gradually identified by publisher Riot Games, Dopa’s esports career was halted for breaches of the game’s EULAs/UCLs. He had a large online following, watching his content shared across all continents via social media.
The business models of esports structures
Now largely obsolete, economic models based solely on esports team performance and the chances of winning prize money have given way to sponsorship and partnership funding, largely bolstered by teams backed by gaming industry influencers.
However, new forms and experiments in team structure appear to be emerging, particularly through the offering of innovative products and services directly by organizations alongside their participation in video game competitions.
Analysis of the G2 structure, emblematic of esports
Present in numerous competitive circuits and video game titles since 2013, the Spanish organization G2 offers an atypical example of the conditions under which an esports organization is created, developed, adapted, and evolved.
Various issues have hampered its growth – including the terminated partnership with the CS:GO Roll platform.
Esports club sponsorship
The main source of funding for esports teams, the wide variety of forms of advertising partnerships – patronage, sponsorship, partnership, sponsorship, red carpet, ambassador, etc. – and the respective expectations of the parties involved, make their signing and negotiation complex for esports teams.
Furthermore, advertising law is particularly dense and complex. Numerous national and EU texts offer definitions of advertising that vary in precision, focusing on criteria that are often redundant. Specific, more stringent regulations exist for certain products, potentially leading to limitations or even outright prohibitions. These restrictions are justified by the need to protect public order and health, and to defend economic or consumer interests.
This is notably the case for advertising related to tobacco, certain food products, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, violent or pornographic content, firearms, political advertising, job offers, and online gambling. It also applies to consumer credit, financial products, travel and holidays, automobiles, and so on.
Several examples of difficulties encountered during unfortunate partnerships have thus shaped the evolution of the esports sector: the esports team “Team YouPorn” was quickly banned from participating in esports events in 2016, recalling a similar situation experienced by the Carcassonne rugby team and its failed partnership with the pornographic brand “Jacquie & Michel,” this time at the request of the French Rugby Federation. Such partnerships are incompatible with competition regulations, the family and/or minor audience of the event, and, for some, the promotion through underage players.
However, a major challenge in attracting new partners is demonstrating profitable and successful partnerships by organizations and respecting their obligations. This is a decisive factor for the future and economic stability of the sector.
We can only reiterate our congratulations to the students for the quality of their projects and their commitment.
