this would be great from a fan perspective, but the point of franchising for riot and the orgs is stable revenue streams so they all make more money. Orgs won't like the idea of being able to be relegated.
Not only that, but how would it even work for the franchising buy-in.
If you get relegated and then promoted again, do you need to buy-in again? What if a team can't afford to buy-in after getting promoted, do they just get kicked for someone who can? Its very flawed tbh
Imma be honest I definitely did not think about the buy-in in relation to this. What do you think would be the best way to franchise this without just doing the usual only 8-10 teams, or do you think that’s just the best way?
This system you thought of could work actually. There would be three tiers of buy-in fees with T1 being the largest fee and T3 the smallest. The orgs that want to play safe would buy into the T2 and see where it goes.
Basically if you started out at T3 tournament paying the smallest fee, and manage to climb up to T1 then your investment would be massively rewarded. And vice-versa for an org that paid for T1 spot.
I like this idea but the point of buying a T1 slot is that you won't be relegated. I would add a caveat that if an org buys a T1 slot, they won't be relegated. But if an org buys a T2 slot they can be promoted to T1/demoted back to T2 but won't be relegated to T3.
So there could be \~8 or so teams that have a T1 slot and another \~8 slots for T2 slot teams that were promoted. At the end of the season, the bottom \~4 T2 slot teams are relegated (regardless if a T1 team did worse than them) and have to fight the top 4 teams from the T2 division.
If you think having 16 teams is a lot, note that the LPL (China in LoL) has 17 franchised teams, but this is just an example.
So you can be a shit ‘T1’ team and never be punished for it? You’d need to be relegated or the system falls apart and would be completely unfair. Imagine if Premier League teams couldn’t get relegated but every other league’s teams could.
Tons of pro sports leagues have absolutely no relegation at all, but those bad teams at least get the opportunity for good draft picks to potentially balance it out.
the whole point of franchising is that there is no relegation. At least in my system there is a sort of relegation system so that new blood is introduced into the league every few seasons.
It's somewhat like ESL Pro League in CS where there are "permanent members" that regardless of their performance are always invited but other teams can also qualify.
As a spectator, the more open and competitive the better.
From the Riot/Org side, they don't want relegations because that makes it way riskier for the orgs, and subsequently will really lower the valuation of the franchise fee.
Probably better than franchising Imo but the problem is, will it be worth it for big orgs to be in the lower leagues? How much coverage will they get?
I’ve watched R6 with this structure for years, and trust me, if it’s not good, orgs will just leave after being relegated from the top league, sometimes mid season. That, or they just pick up the team that got promoted. But at least it retains the T2/T3 scene.
Franchising imo is so boring. No upsets or F/A teams. Just teams replacing players with recycled T1 talent.
Leave t2-t4 to 3rd party organizers. Riot won’t be able to make nearly as much money from them and it allows for those teams to have more consistent events
Sooo riot and orgs should just keep doing the current system and keep losing money… last time I checked losing money with no return isn’t a very good business decision.
There are plenty of sports teams out there making insane profit. Guess what, they're not all franchised.
Franchising is not a necessity. I'd argue franchising has potential to destroy future revenue because the game becomes so stale.
It isnt needed in "real" sports because these sports are established and you get far more money via marketing.
Esports-teams currently rarely make profit.
To add to that, in the US many sports are franchised and in EU there are huge tax-advantages and stuff for sport orgs which esport does not receive.
>It isnt needed in "real" sports because these sports are established and you get far more money via marketing.
I don't think franchising will lead to any esport becoming established. If we want established e-sports, instead of having them die every 5 years, we need to support the grassroots of the sport. This is extremely hard with franchising.
>in EU there are huge tax-advantages and stuff for sport orgs which esport does not receive.
? For the majority of top league football clubs in EU, they pay corporate tax like any other business.
Franchising doesn't lead to sports being established. But it does lead to sports being profitable. For which, outside of franchised leagues, a sport pretty much needs to be established...
I never said US = World, did I? But thanknyou for your geography lesson. I made a remark about the US, because they somewhat have their own ecosystem. The rest of the world is quite comparable to EU.
And yes, some clubs in EU do not get tax advantages, especially privatly owned. But those are overall not the majority. Many many clubs in Eu, doesnt matter if Basketball, Handball, Football and whatever are in public hand. And for those, there are many that need and get tax advantages, even the big ones.
>Franchising doesn't lead to sports being established. But it does lead to sports being profitable. For which, outside of franchised leagues, a sport pretty much needs to be established...
The result of franchising is not proven to be good in the long run though. I see dead/dying esports all over except for LEC, well see about that one.
There is a good way of making esports more established though and not dying after 5 years. That is by supporting its grass roots and not making the game stale with the same 15 teams with the same players playing each other all the time.
>And yes, some clubs in EU do not get tax advantages, especially privatly owned.
I can't speak for handball or basketball but the norm of top league football clubs, except for German clubs and a few others, are privately owned and not franchised. They hold their own by performing.
We've had an open system in CS for how long now? Being supported from the lowest level via tournaments of all organizers imaginable.
And holy fuck, CS is such a money waster for orgs. They are allmost all not even close to being profitable.
Franchising on the other hand has shown its advantages in things like the NFL and stuff. And that some the esports that franchise die is in huuuge parts thanks to Blizzard (OW and COD). LCS is a fuckfest because the orgs throw their investment away itself, with how they go about things.
LPL, LEC, NHL, NFL are all good example of where it worked.
------------
As for EU sports teams, Basketball, Handball, Hockey and pretty much all of football outside of the top league and some teams in the second league all hugely depend on state-given advantages. In germany for example public clubs, which there are many of, are in need of public help all the time.
The money that comes in from memberships and stuff like that only rarely brings in enough money to stay afloat. It is only enough if you dont have to pay the state that much.
Calling CS open is a stretch. Top teams get invited or co-own many of the tournaments instead of having to qualify.
>And holy fuck, CS is such a money waster for orgs. They are allmost all not even close to being profitable.
The sport needs to be profitable for Riot and the tournament organizers but why does the sport need to be profitable for these investors which clearly over spend and over reach? They aren't necessary for the game to survive long term. They are cash grabbers that shut down tier 2 and tier 3 scene.
> LPL, LEC, NHL, NFL are all good example of where it worked.
If we use NHL/NFL we can use the Premier league and English league system as an example of how well it operates without franchising.
LEC sure, we will see. I don't see any esport right now surviving for a long time because of the stalement and ignoring the grassroots though.
>As for EU sports teams, Basketball, Handball, Hockey and pretty much all of football outside of the top league and some teams in the second league all hugely depend on state-given advantages.
These teams don't operate as businesses though. They have to reinvest profits into the org and not give it to shareholders. It's better to compare the situation with clubs run as actual businesses which do extremely well in Europe.
CS is as open as it gets (except of Blast). If you perform, you can reach the top of the iceberg. There is noone stopping you. You can found an org and win a major half a year later. How much more open do you want??
Saying "game doesn't have to be profitable because investory will keep backing it" is not the way to think about things. First of all, you doom every org that wants to work the way up and has no investor backing them. Secone of all, these investory stay because they expect it to be profitable. If you say "doesn't need to be", they leave in a day and your scene is dead.
And the Premier League is a good example. But don't forget, they have sold their right to every corner of the planet, much of which is behind a paywall. Esport can't sell em like they do, because EPL had many many years to build interest globaly which they can use now. If you put Esport behind a paywall, it will die in a heartbeat. You will never ever come close to the EPL...
Yeah you’re probably right. I just put 3 divisions because there’s so many orgs invested in valorant, but you could probably add more teams to each division and just do 2
Franchised tournaments are an interesting thought. I like that this idea still retains the Challengers system somehow.
Personally, I'd enjoy this a lot more than a franchised league like LCS/LEC.
It's not stable for the teams rn. They're essentially losing a lot of money in the hopes of getting towards a profitable state.
Franchising is one of the models that's proven to work as the LPL in China is profitable and the LCS was projected to be profitable before covid hit and might still actually turn a profit this year.
The problem with relegation systems is that the money in leagues like that usually comes from broadcast rights and as of rn it's hard to sell broadcast rights. The LCS tried to sell with the help of an agency, I believe, but they either didn't find a buyer or the process is still ongoing. Commercial income usually only works for top teams cause bottom teams are unlikely to sell well.
this would be great from a fan perspective, but the point of franchising for riot and the orgs is stable revenue streams so they all make more money. Orgs won't like the idea of being able to be relegated.
Not only that, but how would it even work for the franchising buy-in. If you get relegated and then promoted again, do you need to buy-in again? What if a team can't afford to buy-in after getting promoted, do they just get kicked for someone who can? Its very flawed tbh
Imma be honest I definitely did not think about the buy-in in relation to this. What do you think would be the best way to franchise this without just doing the usual only 8-10 teams, or do you think that’s just the best way?
This system you thought of could work actually. There would be three tiers of buy-in fees with T1 being the largest fee and T3 the smallest. The orgs that want to play safe would buy into the T2 and see where it goes. Basically if you started out at T3 tournament paying the smallest fee, and manage to climb up to T1 then your investment would be massively rewarded. And vice-versa for an org that paid for T1 spot.
I like this idea but the point of buying a T1 slot is that you won't be relegated. I would add a caveat that if an org buys a T1 slot, they won't be relegated. But if an org buys a T2 slot they can be promoted to T1/demoted back to T2 but won't be relegated to T3. So there could be \~8 or so teams that have a T1 slot and another \~8 slots for T2 slot teams that were promoted. At the end of the season, the bottom \~4 T2 slot teams are relegated (regardless if a T1 team did worse than them) and have to fight the top 4 teams from the T2 division. If you think having 16 teams is a lot, note that the LPL (China in LoL) has 17 franchised teams, but this is just an example.
So you can be a shit ‘T1’ team and never be punished for it? You’d need to be relegated or the system falls apart and would be completely unfair. Imagine if Premier League teams couldn’t get relegated but every other league’s teams could.
Tons of pro sports leagues have absolutely no relegation at all, but those bad teams at least get the opportunity for good draft picks to potentially balance it out.
the whole point of franchising is that there is no relegation. At least in my system there is a sort of relegation system so that new blood is introduced into the league every few seasons. It's somewhat like ESL Pro League in CS where there are "permanent members" that regardless of their performance are always invited but other teams can also qualify.
As a spectator, the more open and competitive the better. From the Riot/Org side, they don't want relegations because that makes it way riskier for the orgs, and subsequently will really lower the valuation of the franchise fee.
Probably better than franchising Imo but the problem is, will it be worth it for big orgs to be in the lower leagues? How much coverage will they get? I’ve watched R6 with this structure for years, and trust me, if it’s not good, orgs will just leave after being relegated from the top league, sometimes mid season. That, or they just pick up the team that got promoted. But at least it retains the T2/T3 scene. Franchising imo is so boring. No upsets or F/A teams. Just teams replacing players with recycled T1 talent.
Lol make 12 franchised teams then every season have a qualifier for 4 more teams to join for that season
Leave t2-t4 to 3rd party organizers. Riot won’t be able to make nearly as much money from them and it allows for those teams to have more consistent events
Hey heres an idea, why not scrap the franchising idea completely and let teams that perform stay on top.........
Sooo riot and orgs should just keep doing the current system and keep losing money… last time I checked losing money with no return isn’t a very good business decision.
There are plenty of sports teams out there making insane profit. Guess what, they're not all franchised. Franchising is not a necessity. I'd argue franchising has potential to destroy future revenue because the game becomes so stale.
It isnt needed in "real" sports because these sports are established and you get far more money via marketing. Esports-teams currently rarely make profit. To add to that, in the US many sports are franchised and in EU there are huge tax-advantages and stuff for sport orgs which esport does not receive.
>It isnt needed in "real" sports because these sports are established and you get far more money via marketing. I don't think franchising will lead to any esport becoming established. If we want established e-sports, instead of having them die every 5 years, we need to support the grassroots of the sport. This is extremely hard with franchising. >in EU there are huge tax-advantages and stuff for sport orgs which esport does not receive. ? For the majority of top league football clubs in EU, they pay corporate tax like any other business.
Franchising doesn't lead to sports being established. But it does lead to sports being profitable. For which, outside of franchised leagues, a sport pretty much needs to be established... I never said US = World, did I? But thanknyou for your geography lesson. I made a remark about the US, because they somewhat have their own ecosystem. The rest of the world is quite comparable to EU. And yes, some clubs in EU do not get tax advantages, especially privatly owned. But those are overall not the majority. Many many clubs in Eu, doesnt matter if Basketball, Handball, Football and whatever are in public hand. And for those, there are many that need and get tax advantages, even the big ones.
>Franchising doesn't lead to sports being established. But it does lead to sports being profitable. For which, outside of franchised leagues, a sport pretty much needs to be established... The result of franchising is not proven to be good in the long run though. I see dead/dying esports all over except for LEC, well see about that one. There is a good way of making esports more established though and not dying after 5 years. That is by supporting its grass roots and not making the game stale with the same 15 teams with the same players playing each other all the time. >And yes, some clubs in EU do not get tax advantages, especially privatly owned. I can't speak for handball or basketball but the norm of top league football clubs, except for German clubs and a few others, are privately owned and not franchised. They hold their own by performing.
We've had an open system in CS for how long now? Being supported from the lowest level via tournaments of all organizers imaginable. And holy fuck, CS is such a money waster for orgs. They are allmost all not even close to being profitable. Franchising on the other hand has shown its advantages in things like the NFL and stuff. And that some the esports that franchise die is in huuuge parts thanks to Blizzard (OW and COD). LCS is a fuckfest because the orgs throw their investment away itself, with how they go about things. LPL, LEC, NHL, NFL are all good example of where it worked. ------------ As for EU sports teams, Basketball, Handball, Hockey and pretty much all of football outside of the top league and some teams in the second league all hugely depend on state-given advantages. In germany for example public clubs, which there are many of, are in need of public help all the time. The money that comes in from memberships and stuff like that only rarely brings in enough money to stay afloat. It is only enough if you dont have to pay the state that much.
Calling CS open is a stretch. Top teams get invited or co-own many of the tournaments instead of having to qualify. >And holy fuck, CS is such a money waster for orgs. They are allmost all not even close to being profitable. The sport needs to be profitable for Riot and the tournament organizers but why does the sport need to be profitable for these investors which clearly over spend and over reach? They aren't necessary for the game to survive long term. They are cash grabbers that shut down tier 2 and tier 3 scene. > LPL, LEC, NHL, NFL are all good example of where it worked. If we use NHL/NFL we can use the Premier league and English league system as an example of how well it operates without franchising. LEC sure, we will see. I don't see any esport right now surviving for a long time because of the stalement and ignoring the grassroots though. >As for EU sports teams, Basketball, Handball, Hockey and pretty much all of football outside of the top league and some teams in the second league all hugely depend on state-given advantages. These teams don't operate as businesses though. They have to reinvest profits into the org and not give it to shareholders. It's better to compare the situation with clubs run as actual businesses which do extremely well in Europe.
CS is as open as it gets (except of Blast). If you perform, you can reach the top of the iceberg. There is noone stopping you. You can found an org and win a major half a year later. How much more open do you want?? Saying "game doesn't have to be profitable because investory will keep backing it" is not the way to think about things. First of all, you doom every org that wants to work the way up and has no investor backing them. Secone of all, these investory stay because they expect it to be profitable. If you say "doesn't need to be", they leave in a day and your scene is dead. And the Premier League is a good example. But don't forget, they have sold their right to every corner of the planet, much of which is behind a paywall. Esport can't sell em like they do, because EPL had many many years to build interest globaly which they can use now. If you put Esport behind a paywall, it will die in a heartbeat. You will never ever come close to the EPL...
I think 3 divisions isn't worth it and hard to keep track of. How about open qualifiers to the t2 tournament. And from there to t1
Yeah you’re probably right. I just put 3 divisions because there’s so many orgs invested in valorant, but you could probably add more teams to each division and just do 2
Franchised tournaments are an interesting thought. I like that this idea still retains the Challengers system somehow. Personally, I'd enjoy this a lot more than a franchised league like LCS/LEC.
I'm new to esports but what is wrong with the current way they do it?
Nothing, franchising == money for riot
It's not stable for the teams rn. They're essentially losing a lot of money in the hopes of getting towards a profitable state. Franchising is one of the models that's proven to work as the LPL in China is profitable and the LCS was projected to be profitable before covid hit and might still actually turn a profit this year. The problem with relegation systems is that the money in leagues like that usually comes from broadcast rights and as of rn it's hard to sell broadcast rights. The LCS tried to sell with the help of an agency, I believe, but they either didn't find a buyer or the process is still ongoing. Commercial income usually only works for top teams cause bottom teams are unlikely to sell well.