«Law in e-Sports: an evolving legal ecosystem»

Jurisdiction and dispute resolution mechanisms

León began by emphasizing the lack of consistent and efficient legal mechanisms to resolve contractual or disciplinary disputes in e-Sports. As he noted, “there are countries, such as Spain, where labor disputes cannot be submitted to arbitration,” which forces players, coaches, and agents to turn to ordinary courts. This results in prolonged proceedings and a lack of legal certainty.

To mitigate this gap, certain stakeholders have taken proactive steps. Riot Games, for instance, established its own internal tribunal to adjudicate horizontal disputes—i.e., those between players, coaches, or clubs—within its competitive ecosystem. According to León, this move reflects a forward-thinking approach by the publisher, despite the absence of any legal obligation to do so.

Competitive integrity and private oversight bodies

The session also addressed issues concerning the integrity of competitive play, including match-fixing, illegal betting, and, to a lesser extent, doping. While doping remains relatively rare, the prevalence of illicit betting and manipulation has prompted the creation of specialized oversight bodies such as the Esports Integrity Commission. As León clarified, this private body deals strictly with integrity-related matters and does not intervene in labor or contractual disputes.

This indicates a limited, yet important, dimension of the law in e-Sports, where enforcement still relies heavily on private initiatives and lacks comprehensive legal frameworks.

The regulatory role of publishers

One of the most distinctive aspects of law in e-Sports is the central role played by game publishers. As a participant in the session aptly observed, “it’s as if the publisher owns the ball in football.” Publishers control not only the game itself but also who can compete, under what rules, and with what sanctions.

León warned that such concentrated authority can lead to potential abuses of dominant position, particularly in the absence of independent legal oversight. Unlike traditional sports—where federations govern but do not own the “field of play”—publishers in e-Sports maintain full ownership of their digital products, which gives them an unprecedented degree of control over the ecosystem.

Is the model transferable to other sports?

The discussion also considered whether the publisher-led model of dispute resolution could be replicated in emerging sports such as padel or pickleball, where international federations remain underdeveloped. León agreed that there is a “clear trend toward the empowerment of leagues and clubs at the expense of traditional federations,” particularly in sports lacking centralized governance.

He cited Major League Soccer (MLS) in the United States as an example, where collective bargaining agreements play a major role and limit the unilateral power of federations. This governance approach, while rooted in traditional sport, aligns conceptually with the structure of law in e-Sports, particularly in its decentralization of legal authority.

Public pressure and legal evolution

Despite the dominant role of publishers, León argued that they are not immune to external pressure. “If an injustice is committed against a beloved player and goes public, it can damage the game’s image and, consequently, the publisher’s revenue,” he explained. This suggests that public opinion, media scrutiny, and fan activism may serve as catalysts for legal reform and better practices within the e-Sports industry.

Riot Games, once again, was cited as a positive example for anticipating these issues and establishing internal legal mechanisms. According to León, other companies—such as EA Sports or Blizzard—should follow this lead if they intend to build a credible and professionalized legal environment around their competitive platforms.