Présentation
On December 5th, Mr. Chomiac de Sas had the pleasure of speaking again with Arnaud Dumourier about esports law, particularly the regulations governing player contracts in competitive video games.
Read the full interview:
This interview complements our previous articles on this topic in Lex Inside:
Law & Esports – The Legal Status of Esports Players
Historically, the service contract became the dominant contractual form in esports before any specific legal recognition of the sector. Lacking a dedicated legal framework, esports organizations—companies or associations—entered into service contracts with players, often with the latter operating as sole traders or through personal companies, to organize their participation in competitions and related services (promotion, representation, image rights transfer, etc.).
This highly flexible service-based approach allowed the parties to freely define the obligations, terms of performance, and termination of the contractual relationship, adapting to the economic and organizational uncertainties of the sector. However, this contractual freedom also masks a significant legal vulnerability: many service contracts exhibit clear signs of subordination and economic dependence, exposing these entities to an increasing risk of reclassification as employment contracts, with serious civil, social, and criminal consequences (social security contributions, penalties for undeclared work, etc.) if this relationship is recognized by the courts.
Faced with these uncertainties, the French legislature intervened in 2016 to establish a specific legal framework for esports employment contracts, creating a fixed-term contract tailored to professional video game players through Article 102 of the Law for a Digital Republic.
Largely inspired by contracts for athletes, this law formally regulates the employer-player relationship: the contract must be in writing, specify the identity of the parties, the duration (minimum one season, maximum five years), and include the obligations and remuneration, while clubs must obtain administrative approval to hire under this type of contract. This legislation aimed to protect players and structure the sector while recognizing the specific nature of competitions.
However, in practice, the use of this contract remains limited, as its rigidity, its social cost, and certain burdensome obligations (particularly those related to labor law) often make it unsuitable for the economic realities of many organizations, which still prefer to use independent contractors.
In this contemporary context, the status of service provider remains preferred, while a special case arises for minor players, for whom employment is strictly regulated: the hiring of minors under 16 years of age is in principle prohibited and can only be done under very strict conditions (administrative authorization, respect for the rules of protection of minors), under penalty of nullity of the contract or sanctions.
Law & Esports – What Activities, Missions, and Services Are Provided to Players?
The contractual situations of esports players vary considerably, depending on their skill level, reputation, and especially the events or competitions in which they participate, such as top-level closed leagues like the LEC (League of Legends European Championship).
Within these highly structured frameworks, players’ obligations extend far beyond simply participating in matches: they are required to adhere to a precise schedule, comply with the rules imposed by the publisher and the league, and actively participate in the club’s activities.
This participation includes not only official competitions but also related activities essential to the team’s visibility, such as attending promotional events, trade shows, fan meet-and-greets, or communication campaigns organized by the club or its partners.
Furthermore, the exploitation of players’ images plays a central role in esports contractual relationships, particularly for players competing in high-profile tournaments. Their image is frequently associated with advertising contracts, sponsorships, or brand partners of the club, whether through marketing campaigns, social media content, or public appearances.
Contracts then include the transfer or licensing of image rights, sometimes very broad, integrated into the primary relationship between the player and the organization.
Law & Esports – Complex Esports Contract Clauses
The structure of esports player compensation reflects the diversity of statuses and economic models within the sector. Depending on the contract, compensation can take the form of a monthly fee, performance bonuses linked to competition results, revenue from tournament winnings, or indirect benefits (such as coverage of accommodation, travel, equipment, or living expenses).
In addition to these elements, there are significant physical and logistical constraints: provision of training facilities (gaming houses or dedicated centers), supply of computer equipment, organization of daily training sessions, frequent travel abroad for international competitions, visa management, and administrative support.
When these constraints are strictly organized and imposed by the organization, they strongly influence the player’s activity and can constitute further evidence of a subordinate relationship, particularly relevant when analyzing the risk of reclassifying service contracts as employment contracts.
Furthermore, contracts frequently include specific “cheerleader” clauses, imposing obligations of behavior, positive attitude, and loyalty on players towards the club, sponsors, or partners, both during competitions and in their public and online lives.
These clauses are closely linked to the suitability of contracts to the requirements of tournament organizers, who often impose strict standards regarding communication, discipline, image, and compliance with regulations (particularly in closed leagues).
In this context, the terms of use of players’ personal social media accounts become a central contractual issue: obligations to promote partners, restrictions on certain content, prior approval of posts, or penalties for violations.
If these obligations are excessively detailed or controlled, they increase the club’s intrusion into the player’s personal life and, once again, fuel the legal debate on the true nature of the contractual relationship.
Law & Esports – Risks related to esports player contracts
Recent court decisions affecting the esports sector have focused on analyzing player contracts under labor law. Referring to the usual applicable criteria, French judges have issued several rulings recognizing the reclassification of player contracts as employment contracts.
In a judgment dated March 27, 2024, the Paris Judicial Court reclassified a service contract for an esports player as an employment contract. (Paris Judicial Court, March 27, 2024 – No. 22/02668).
On June 13, 2024 (Case No. 22/03196), the Rouen Court of Appeal ruled that an esports player could be hired on a fixed-term contract for a temporary increase in staff, even if their club did not have “esports” accreditation, while also noting that this lack of accreditation could not be used against the player.
In a ruling issued on June 18, 2025 (Metz Court of Appeal, Case No. 23/02325), the Metz Court of Appeal reclassified a “gamer agreement” as an employment contract.
The issue of transfers and changes of esports players remains particularly complex in the absence of a unified framework comparable to that of traditional sports. Transfer mechanisms are currently governed primarily by contracts between players and organizations, as well as by the regulations of publishers and competition organizers, which may impose transfer windows, termination conditions, or compensation.
This situation creates significant heterogeneity in practices and legal uncertainty for players, particularly when non-compete clauses, extended notice periods, or buyouts are included. These contractual arrangements, when they excessively restrict a player’s professional freedom, can be challenged under labor law or competition law, and constitute a major point of concern when analyzing the legal status of esports players.
At the same time, issues related to player health and the problems of doping, hacking, and corruption are playing an increasingly important role in esports regulation. Intensified training, frequent competitions, and media pressure expose players to physical risks (musculoskeletal disorders, eye strain) and psychological risks (stress, burnout), necessitating appropriate prevention and monitoring measures.
Added to this are the requirements for competition integrity, with strict rules aimed at combating digital or pharmacological doping, cheating practices, match-fixing, and attacks on computer systems.
Tournament organizers are therefore implementing stricter controls on players—technical, disciplinary, and sometimes medical checks—the acceptance of which is often a prerequisite for participation in competitions. These control mechanisms, essential to the credibility of esports, nevertheless strengthen the framework for the activity of players and contribute to the legal debate on the real nature of their relationship with structures and organizers.
