Introduction:

In recent years, the concept of franchising in esports has become a hot topic of debate. While franchise leagues offer guaranteed spots for paying teams, concerns have arisen regarding the impact of this model on the growth and development of the industry. This article aims to delve into the origins of franchising in esports, its successes and challenges, and whether it is truly beneficial for the future of the industry.

The Evolution of Esports:

Back in 2012, most esports operated under an open circuit format, where teams had to qualify for tournaments and travel to attend them. However, the introduction of more structured leagues, such as Riot Games’ League of Legends, marked a shift in the esports landscape. These leagues offered regionally based competitions with spots subject to performance and relegation.

Benefits and Limitations of the Open Circuit Model:

The open circuit model had numerous benefits for players, allowing them to self-organize and reap the rewards of their efforts. Developers also favored this model as it required minimal involvement on their part. However, as esports grew in popularity, some limitations of the open circuit model became apparent. Developers had limited control over their product, and the constant turnover of teams and players made it challenging to build a reliable and consistent brand.

Enter Franchising:

Recognizing the need for more stability and monetization opportunities, Riot Games took the leap in 2017 by introducing franchising to the League of Legends Championship Series (LCS). This new model aimed to attract major investments and provide a structured format for teams, relieving concerns about relegation. Other esports followed suit, such as Blizzard’s Overwatch League, which aimed to compete with traditional sports leagues like the NFL and NBA.

Successes and Challenges of Franchising:

While franchising brought in big-name investors and increased financial stability, it also presented challenges. The pandemic in 2020 exposed weaknesses in this model, as broadcast deals relied heavily on viewership, which plummeted during the crisis. Franchise fees were waived for some teams, demonstrating the need for adaptation in the face of unforeseen circumstances.

League of Legends Franchising:

League of Legends franchising enjoyed relative success due to its established fan base and organized structure. However, the removal of relegation raised concerns about the level of competition and quality of play. This aspect of franchising made it difficult for new teams to emerge and challenged the spirit of esports built on the idea of grinding and determination.

Valve’s Approach:

Valve, the developer behind popular games like Dota 2 and Counter-Strike, chose to maintain an open circuit model for their esports competitions. This decision allowed for diverse tournament organizers, talent lineups, and approaches to the game. Valve believed in the value of competition, where teams had to earn their spots through performance rather than financial investments.

The Pros and Cons:

Franchise leagues offer stability, financial opportunities, and increased professionalism. However, they can stifle competition, limit opportunities for new teams, and rely heavily on consistent revenue streams.

Conclusion:

The debate over franchising in esports is complex, with both pros and cons to be considered. While it offers stability and financial security, it can also hinder competition and the organic growth of the industry. Ultimately, finding a balance between franchise leagues and open circuit models may be crucial for the sustainable growth of esports as a whole.

Mentioned: franchising, esports, League of Legends, Riot Games, Overwatch League, LCS, Valve, Dota 2, Counter-Strike