In esports, the owner of the video game occupies a position that does not exist in traditional sports. And its prominence is explained, in part, by the absence of an equivalent federative structure.
In football, no company owns the game. Clubs, federations and organisers can establish competitions within the applicable legal framework, but nobody holds an intellectual property right over the rules of football allowing them to authorise or prohibit its practice.
In esports, things are different. A competition involving League of Legends, VALORANT or any other video game takes place using a product protected by intellectual property rights, whose exploitation belongs to its right holders, normally through the companies that publish and market it, known as publishers.
An organiser may have sponsors, teams, players, facilities and financing, and still need to establish what authorisation allows it to use the video game to organise and exploit the competition.
The central question, therefore, is who controls the rights necessary to organise, broadcast and commercialise an esports tournament.
1. First: the legal recognition of esports in Spain
This is where to begin, because it explains much of the structure that follows.
Law 39/2022 of 30 December on Sport does not expressly recognise esports as a sporting discipline or establish a specific federative regime for them.
There is therefore no recognised Spanish esports federation exercising the public powers that Spanish legislation attributes to sports federations in their respective disciplines.
The consequence is twofold.
On the one hand, esports competitions are structured primarily through general law — intellectual property, civil, commercial, employment, competition, data protection and consumer law — without prejudice to other rules that may apply.
On the other hand, and this is decisive, the video game licence occupies a central position in the organisation of competitions.
Not because the publisher has powers equivalent to those of a federation, which it does not, but because its rights may legally determine whether the tournament can be held and commercially exploited.
Much of the contractual structure of esports is explained by this combination of intellectual property and the absence of a specific federative system.
2. The video game as an object of intellectual property
Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, approving the consolidated text of the Spanish Intellectual Property Act, protects computer programs, audiovisual works, musical compositions and other original creations under article 10.
A video game may incorporate protected elements of different kinds — code, characters, settings, graphics, music, animations and audiovisual sequences — which do not necessarily have the same owner or fall under the same regime: computer programs have their own regime under articles 95 to 104.
Article 17 grants the right holder exclusive exploitation rights, including reproduction, distribution, communication to the public and transformation, without prejudice to the particular rules applicable to computer programs and existing contractual authorisations.
Hence the practical consequence: purchasing a copy of a video game or holding a user account is not equivalent to acquiring its exploitation rights.
The user may play under the authorised conditions, but does not thereby obtain a general licence to organise commercial competitions, use the video game’s trademarks or broadcast its content for any purpose.
3. The publisher and the actual scope of the licence
The publisher usually holds the rights or authorisations necessary to control the commercial exploitation of the video game, and may intervene both in its technical conditions and in the structure of competitions held using it: licences for organisers, conditions for using its trademarks, advertising restrictions, broadcasting rules and competitive integrity requirements.
It may also organise official competitions directly or authorise third parties to do so.
But the publisher’s control is not a public regulatory power. It is based on its intellectual property rights, contracts and the conditions of use of the video game, subject to the limits of applicable law.
This is why there is no single legal model for organising esports: each video game may have its own licensing system.
Some publishers allow community competitions under general licences, without individual approval, provided their conditions are met, and permit certain forms of monetisation — entry fees, sponsorships and prizes — subject to requirements and restrictions.
Riot Games provides for this type of authorisation for certain League of Legends community competitions. Other professional or commercial tournaments may require specific agreements.
The World Intellectual Property Organization, in its Guidelines for Esports Tournament Organizers, highlights the need to verify that authorisations cover the uses actually intended: holding the event, using gameplay footage, displaying video game content and distributing broadcasts.
This last point is particularly important. A licence may permit the organisation of a tournament without necessarily authorising every form of commercial exploitation.
The existence of a community of players does not turn a video game into infrastructure freely available for commercial exploitation.
4. Broadcasting rights
Audiovisual exploitation is one of the sector’s principal sources of revenue, and the rights over a broadcast must not be confused with the rights over the video game.
Several rights coexist within a single competition: the publisher controls the rights it holds over protected game elements appearing during gameplay; the organiser may hold rights over audiovisual content produced for the tournament, depending on its involvement and the contracts; production companies and broadcasting organisations may hold their own rights over their respective productions and broadcasts; and players retain the rights corresponding to their image, voice and other personal attributes.
Therefore, recording a competition does not mean holding all the rights necessary to exploit the recording commercially.
An organiser may contract audiovisual production and still require the publisher’s authorisation for certain uses of the video game.
And the publisher’s licence does not replace the participants’ image rights authorisations or the rights over music or other content incorporated into the broadcast.
WIPO also distinguishes between authorisations necessary to promote and broadcast the event and other commercial uses that may require separate consent.
In addition, the conditions of distribution platforms must be considered, as they impose their own content rules.
5. Image rights: consent is revocable
Here lies, in our view, one of the sector’s most underestimated risks.
The right to one’s own image is protected by article 18.1 of the Spanish Constitution and by Organic Law 1/1982.
Article 7.6 of that Law classifies, under the legally established conditions, the use of a person’s name, voice or image for advertising, commercial or similar purposes as an unlawful interference.
Therefore, the commercial use of a player’s image generally requires valid authorisation.
What matters is what the law says about that authorisation.
Article 2.3 establishes that consent may be revoked at any time, with compensation, where appropriate, for the damage and loss caused, including justified expectations.
In other words, a sponsor that has contracted to use a player’s image for four years is not absolutely guaranteed that the authorisation will remain in force throughout that period.
If the player validly revokes consent, the legal and financial consequences of that revocation must be examined under the law and the contract.
Article 9 completes the picture: once an unlawful interference has been established, the existence of harm is presumed; compensation extends to moral damage and may take into account the benefit obtained by the person responsible for the interference. Actions for protection under this Law are subject to a four-year limitation period, running from the moment the entitled person could exercise them.
Three consequences follow for anyone structuring a competition.
First, it is necessary to determine precisely who receives the authorisation, for what uses, for how long, in which territories and with what power to assign rights to third parties: authorisation granted to a club to promote the team does not automatically authorise the organiser or all its sponsors.
Second, individual image rights must be distinguished from rights over the club’s trademarks and distinctive signs, which follow a different regime.
And third, the player’s contract, the club’s agreement with the competition and the sponsorship agreements must be compatible with one another, because otherwise the same image may end up being exploited by companies holding incompatible rights.
6. Clubs, sponsors and exclusivity conflicts
Esports clubs exploit their trademarks, hire players, produce content, market products and enter into sponsorship agreements, and those commercial rights may conflict with those of the organiser or publisher.
Suppose a club has an exclusive sponsor in a particular product category and the competition has another sponsor in the same category.
Can the organiser require the club to remove certain logos from its kit? Can it use the team’s image in a campaign for its own sponsor? And what happens if the publisher prohibits an advertising category that the club has already contracted?
The answer depends on the contracts, participation rules and applicable authorisations.
This is why agreements should establish an express hierarchy between the competition’s commercial obligations and the rights previously acquired by clubs and players, as well as regulating reserved categories, exclusivity arrangements and the consequences of a conflict.
The problem is not exclusive to esports, but it acquires an additional dimension because the publisher may impose conditions linked to the licence.
7. If the publisher changes the rules or withdraws the licence
This is a matter of considerable economic importance.
An organiser may invest in a competition, hire facilities, commit prize money, secure sponsors and conclude broadcasting agreements, while the continuity of the project depends on a licence granted by the publisher.
Riot Games’ community competition guidelines for VALORANT, for example, have provided for limited and revocable licences subject to the company’s conditions.
That does not mean every contractual decision is beyond challenge: its validity and consequences will depend on the applicable law, the content of the agreements and the circumstances.
But it does demonstrate that the stability of a competition may depend on decisions taken by a company controlling rights essential to its organisation.
Contracts should regulate the duration of the licence, the grounds for termination, the rules governing changes to conditions, the treatment of investments already made and the consequences of cancellation, including what happens to sponsorships, tickets, committed prizes and audiovisual rights if the tournament ceases to take place.
A competition may be economically viable and yet legally vulnerable if the rights necessary for its operation are not secured.
8. Integrity, sanctions and dispute resolution
Organising competitions requires rules on participation, results, conduct, cheating, unauthorised software and sanctions, which in esports may come from the publisher, the organiser or both.
Regulations must define prohibited conduct, investigation procedures, sanctions and avenues of appeal, and must be coordinated with players’ and clubs’ contracts.
The existence of competitive rules does not eliminate the need for procedural safeguards, particularly when a sanction has significant economic or professional consequences.
Specialised mechanisms exist for dispute resolution.
The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center offers mediation, arbitration and expert determination for disputes related to video games and esports, with professionals specialising in intellectual property and related sectoral matters.
There is also the International Games and Esports Tribunal (IGET), an initiative associated with the Esports Integrity Commission (ESIC) and the WIPO Center.
Its structure distinguishes between disputes concerning competitive integrity and commercial or intellectual property disputes, although the specific jurisdiction of each mechanism depends on its rules and the applicable agreements.
This distinction should be borne in mind when drafting a dispute resolution clause.
Arbitration is particularly useful in international competitions, provided there is a valid arbitration agreement and the matter is arbitrable.
Not all disputes can be freely submitted to arbitration: mandatory rules and the parties’ rights must be respected, and employment or disciplinary matters affecting fundamental rights have their own limits.
9. What the organisation agreement should regulate
Video game licence. Which uses are authorised, for which competitions, in which territories and for how long, verifying that its scope covers the use actually intended.
Audiovisual rights. Who may record, broadcast, distribute and monetise gameplay and event content, and which commercial uses require additional authorisation.
Trademarks and intellectual property. Which logos, characters, images and promotional materials may be used, and what happens to third-party trademarks appearing within the game itself.
Image rights. What authorisations players and other participants grant, their duration and territorial scope, the power to assign them and what happens if they are revoked.
Sponsorships. Which categories are permitted, what exclusivity arrangements exist, which rights prevail in a conflict and who is liable for it.
Participation and prizes. What obligations clubs and players assume, how prizes are distributed and what happens in the event of cancellation.
Modification and termination. Under what conditions the rules may change, the competition may be suspended or the licence terminated, and how investments already made are treated.
Dispute resolution. Which law applies, which forum decides each type of dispute and which procedures are available.
These matters should not be scattered across contradictory general conditions, competition regulations and commercial agreements.
Conclusion
Esports share with traditional sports competition, teams, players, sponsors and spectators.
The legal difference is twofold: the environment in which the competition takes place is a video game protected by intellectual property rights and, in Spain, there is no specific federative system equivalent to that of recognised sporting disciplines.
The second circumstance helps explain the importance of the first.
Around this structure are organised the rights of organisers, clubs, players, production companies and sponsors, with one particularly relevant element: the commercial exploitation of a player’s image rests on consent that is legally revocable.
That is why an esports competition cannot be structured solely as a sporting event.
It must also be organised as an intellectual property licensing operation and an arrangement for the exploitation of commercial rights.
The decisive question is not only who organises the competition, but who holds the rights necessary for it to exist, be broadcast and generate revenue, and for how long those rights are secured.
Note: this analysis is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice concerning any specific competition or contract. The applicable regime depends on the rights over each video game, the licences granted, the contractual relationships and the relevant legislation.
Sources: Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996 of 12 April, consolidated Spanish Intellectual Property Act, articles 10, 17 and 95–104; Organic Law 1/1982 of 5 May, articles 2.3, 7.6 and 9; Spanish Constitution, article 18.1; Law 39/2022 of 30 December on Sport; Riot Games community competition guidelines for League of Legends and VALORANT; World Intellectual Property Organization, Guidelines for Esports Tournament Organizers, Guidelines for Esports Players and Intellectual Property and Esports: An Overview of the Game; WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center and International Games and Esports Tribunal (ESIC–WIPO).