How Should Gaming Companies Structure IP Ownership in eSports Tournament Agreements?

Introduction

The esports industry has developed into a global phenomenon; however, game publishers are the ones who own the core IP for every title, which is a major difference when compared to traditional sports, and it thus creates a unique legal landscape with some degree of tension. The publisher, who is the sole owner of all the foundational rights, is obliged to protect the asset. Still, the esports ecosystem cannot be healthy without other parties' (like tournament organizers, teams, and players) involvement and investment and somewhat branding their own around the game. In case of a publisher's too stringent agreements, the above-mentioned investment might not happen, and thus the ecosystem would be killed. So, the gaming companies' central challenge is no longer to monopolize all IP but to draw up fair, well-defined, multi-layered licensing agreements. The present article will discuss the major IP elements and recommend the sustainable structure.

The Publisher's Citadel: Non-Negotiable Core IP

The tournament agreement needs to start from the publisher's assertion of absolute ownership of its core IP, which is the "citadel" from which other rights are licensed temporarily. This IP collection is dual in nature.

The first one is the copyright of the whole audiovisual game (code, art, music). The general End-User License Agreement (EULA) prohibits commercial broadcasting, so the tournament agreement becomes a commercial license that partially short-circuits the EULA and allows "public performance" of the game for the event on a temporary and limited basis.

The second is the trademark for the game’s name, logos, and branding. The agreement grants the limited right to use these for promotion with strict rules to keep the brand from weakening.

Most importantly, the agreement has to state that these are limited licenses and not a transfer or assignment of ownership. This non-negotiable foundation secures the publisher as the pillar of the ecosystem.

The Collaborative Framework: Structuring Key IP Rights

With the publisher's core rights established, the rest of the agreement should focus on a collaborative framework that clearly delineates the rights of each stakeholder. The most critical and often contentious areas are broadcast rights, team/player IP, merchandising, and sponsorship.

1. Broadcast and Data Rights

The major way for an esports league to earn money is through the broadcast. The owner of the game must keep the full ownership of the broadcast rights. Then, it should issue a set of licenses in a hierarchy.

Usually, the publisher will give the tournament organizer an exclusive license for the “primary broadcast,” which is the official high-quality feed of the event. Then sublicense this primary broadcast to platforms like Twitch, YouTube, or traditional TV networks.

Nevertheless, a smart publisher will not just stay there. A very important part of modern esports is the "co-streaming" ecosystem. Gamers, commentators, and influencers each have their own big followers. A well-arranged contract will predicatively provide a separate, more limited co-streaming license. This allows the chosen streamers to show the tournament on their own channels with their own commentary. This is a very strong "win-win": the league gets free marketing and community engagement, the personal brands of players are being used, and the total viewership is getting bigger "pie," all while the publisher keeps control over the main, highly monetized broadcast.

2. Player and Team Intellectual Property

This is the most delicate area for the teams and players. Players create their own IP in part through their "gamer tag" (which could be a trademark), their personal brand, and their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL). Teams spend millions on their own brand, logos, and team names.

A predatory agreement is going to insist on players or teams assigning (permanent transfer) IP ownership to the publisher or league. This is a wrong move in terms of business that unimaginably devalues and discourages people from investing their money along with their efforts.

The right way to do it is a limited license. The contract should convey that the players and teams give the publisher and TO a limited, non-exclusive license to make use of their IP (team logos, player photos, and gamer tags) only in the case of promoting and broadcasting the tournament, and only during the season. This gives the league the opportunity to market its stars and teams, while at the same time, the teams and players, who are the ones entitled to the ownership of their brands, which they can sell independently, are guaranteed.

3. Merchandising and Co-Branding

Merchandising is a difficult but at the same time lucrative revenue stream. The tournament agreement has to clearly categorize the merchandise into 3 categories:

● Publisher-Only IP: Merchandise that uses only the game's IP (the example being a t-shirt with a game character). The publisher holds the exclusive rights.

● Team/Player-Only IP: Merchandise that uses only the team’s logo or player’s gamer tag. The team/player holds the exclusive rights.

● Co-Branded IP: The most preferred items, for example, an official team jersey with the tournament logo or a mousepad with a team’s logo and a game character.

The contract should specify that the companies producing the goods will be responsible for the quality of the merchandise being released under this third category and that they will do so only after a co-licensing agreement with the team exists, which will set out a clear division of the royalties. This helps in avoiding any legal confusion and, at the same time, establishing a structured revenue stream that is shared by both parties.

4. Sponsorship and Exclusivity

Conflicts arising from sponsorships are unavoidable. For example, the league's official drink sponsor could be Coca-Cola, while the team's star player has a great contract with Pepsi. This portion of the agreement will need to be managed to prevent it from escalating into a conflict.

The preferred method is "reserved categories." The publisher/TO will "reserve" a small number (for example, 5-10) of high-value, exclusive sponsorship categories for the league itself (for example, "Official Beverage," "Official PC," "Official Headset"). The agreement will then specify that competing sponsors are not allowed to be visible or promoted by teams and players in these reserved categories during the official broadcast.

Most importantly, this allows all other categories to be "open" for teams and players to sell to whoever they please. By doing this, a fair balance is achieved: the league can fund its operations through its major sponsors, while teams and players sell enough inventory to support themselves.

Conclusion

Gaming companies, as the ultimate owners of the "field of play," must recognize that hoarding all IP is a short-term, unsustainable strategy. It stifles the investment from partners, teams, and players that is necessary to build a vibrant sport and ultimately devalues their own game.

The most successful esports ecosystems are built on structured collaboration, not absolute control. The ideal tournament agreement, therefore, acts as a constitution: it first protects the publisher's non-negotiable core IP, then pivots to a tiered, limited licensing framework. By clearly granting broadcast rights, empowering co-streamers, respecting player and team IP, and balancing sponsorships, a publisher creates an ecosystem where all parties have the security to invest, driving community growth and long-term value for the game itself.