Riot has announced massive changes to the NA LCS Structure to begin in 2018. Here are some of the biggest changes:
*Permanent Partners will be brought in based on an application process. Current teams are NOT guaranteed to be given slots. *Spots will cost $10 million USD. *Revenue will now be shared, both between Players and Teams. *Teams will be guaranteed 32.5% of the NA LCS revenue. *16.25% of this revenue will be evenly spread between all of the teams. *The other 16.25% will be used for prize pools. *Players will be guaranteed 35% of the NA LCS revenue. *Minimum salary for players will now be 75k. *Challenger scene will be rebooted as an Academy scene. *Players' Association will also be built.
For the full information, check out Riot's announcement here.
I guess the TL roster makes a lot more sense now. This split is meaningless for teams that aren't going to be fighting for worlds spot so might as well hold off wasting any money mid season and instead wait for contracts to be up end of year.
There are a lot of positive steps here, I personally dislike the concept of franchising as it isn't needed for the rest of it to happen anyway. Players Union being linked with Riot kind of defeats the purpose in a way as well so we'll see how much teeth such a thing has in the future.
On June 01 2017 23:47 Numy wrote: I guess the TL roster makes a lot more sense now. This split is meaningless for teams that aren't going to be fighting for worlds spot
Unless you get relegated. Relegation dies in 2018- there's still one more chance to get relegated in 2017.
On June 01 2017 23:47 Numy wrote: I guess the TL roster makes a lot more sense now. This split is meaningless for teams that aren't going to be fighting for worlds spot
Unless you get relegated. Relegation dies in 2018- there's still one more chance to get relegated in 2017.
Teams have to apply for LCS spots next year so doesn't matter what happens this split. It's just about if Riot likes you in the league or not. TL is an old brand, owned by sports guys and has Riot approved CEOs so it's highly unlikely they won't be a part of the LCS. So saccing this split and just trying to get better lineup for next year plays into their application more than trying now.
On June 01 2017 23:47 Numy wrote: Players Union being linked with Riot kind of defeats the purpose in a way as well so we'll see how much teeth such a thing has in the future.
It doesn't look like it's linked - it's just initially funded by Riot and after that run independently. That's about as good as you could hope for.
Riot's cut being 30% seems huge, but I don't know the exact structure of other 'pro' sports(although I know revenue splits tend to be at or above 50% pretty much for players), and I know Riot is a more active participant in this case in comparison to say the NFL(the monumental difference being that they own the game, it's an actual IP not a sport, and they provide venues, not just a commissioner and league office staff).
On June 01 2017 23:47 Numy wrote: I guess the TL roster makes a lot more sense now. This split is meaningless for teams that aren't going to be fighting for worlds spot so might as well hold off wasting any money mid season and instead wait for contracts to be up end of year.
There are a lot of positive steps here, I personally dislike the concept of franchising as it isn't needed for the rest of it to happen anyway. Players Union being linked with Riot kind of defeats the purpose in a way as well so we'll see how much teeth such a thing has in the future.
Honestly though, who was out there to be signed? Outside of pulling rookies, the only player available of any note was Turtle. Doesn't really do much for the mid position unless you intend to keep Piglet in mid.
10 million buy-in? Seems like a lot for a game that might well be dead in 10 years. But what do I know.
Especially since you're only guaranteed like what, a 1-2% share of total revenue before performance rewards? To me this seems like Riot trying to 100% offset risk onto teams with the buy-in. Is Riot even making money off of LCS yet? Because I'm trying to fathom a scenario where this makes any economic sense for the team purchasing the buy-in, and I'm really struggling.
On June 02 2017 07:49 red_ wrote: Riot's cut being 30% seems huge, but I don't know the exact structure of other 'pro' sports(although I know revenue splits tend to be at or above 50% pretty much for players), and I know Riot is a more active participant in this case in comparison to say the NFL(the monumental difference being that they own the game, it's an actual IP not a sport, and they provide venues, not just a commissioner and league office staff).
in 2014 the NFL (the most owner/league focused of the big three) made about 12 Billion. We know how much was shared because of the Green Bay Packers, who release said info as the only publicly owned team. the rev share total works out to about 7.2 Billion for 2014. So the NFL kept ~40% of revenue. This was during the transition from non profit to for profit.
Salary Cap was 133 Million per team that year, which would work out to 4.256 Billion if every team spent at cap. (which they did not)
So it looks like riot took the NFL proportions and used those. Though the NFL is the greediest of sports leagues.
i am wary about Riot fronting the money to create a players union. how much will they be influencing that union. because once the union is founded, they are at odds with it in negotiations. But im overwhelmingly pro labor and pro union in these types of situations.
As for the revenue. It's important to note that NFL teams keep Local Revenue (tickets concessions etc team sponsorship/partnership). Something that is a lot harder to come by for LCS teams.
On June 03 2017 16:21 zer0das wrote: 10 million buy-in? Seems like a lot for a game that might well be dead in 10 years. But what do I know.
Especially since you're only guaranteed like what, a 1-2% share of total revenue before performance rewards? To me this seems like Riot trying to 100% offset risk onto teams with the buy-in. Is Riot even making money off of LCS yet? Because I'm trying to fathom a scenario where this makes any economic sense for the team purchasing the buy-in, and I'm really struggling.
Well then there's the 20 million Blizzard wanted for OW which might never be alive.
On June 02 2017 07:49 red_ wrote: Riot's cut being 30% seems huge, but I don't know the exact structure of other 'pro' sports(although I know revenue splits tend to be at or above 50% pretty much for players), and I know Riot is a more active participant in this case in comparison to say the NFL(the monumental difference being that they own the game, it's an actual IP not a sport, and they provide venues, not just a commissioner and league office staff).
i am wary about Riot fronting the money to create a players union. how much will they be influencing that union. because once the union is founded, they are at odds with it in negotiations. But im overwhelmingly pro labor and pro union in these types of situations.
Having a strong players union is basically mandatory for franchising to exist as the nature of franchising disproportionately gives power to the teams over players where as now there exists a more middle ground. I do wonder if salaries will drop substantially next year as teams no longer have to fork out the big money to keep players from running off to new VC teams.
On June 02 2017 07:49 red_ wrote: Riot's cut being 30% seems huge, but I don't know the exact structure of other 'pro' sports(although I know revenue splits tend to be at or above 50% pretty much for players), and I know Riot is a more active participant in this case in comparison to say the NFL(the monumental difference being that they own the game, it's an actual IP not a sport, and they provide venues, not just a commissioner and league office staff).
i am wary about Riot fronting the money to create a players union. how much will they be influencing that union. because once the union is founded, they are at odds with it in negotiations. But im overwhelmingly pro labor and pro union in these types of situations.
Having a strong players union is basically mandatory for franchising to exist as the nature of franchising disproportionately gives power to the teams over players where as now there exists a more middle ground. I do wonder if salaries will drop substantially next year as teams no longer have to fork out the big money to keep players from running off to new VC teams.
Probably not. They still don't anywhere match the advertising impact they provide.
That's a solid point but it also could hint at something else. Previously marketability was a very big factor in NA esports(Still is obviously). Over time I felt teams try go for a mixture a bit bringing in all these Korean players who while they have name power don't quite have the marketability as other players. Is it possible we see a shift more back to the previous setup? There are also players who don't really have that same advertising impact but due to being NA resident in a weak position or just lack of talent pool locally been paid rather high as another VC team could just take them away. Now that kind of player may be worth less going forward.
So it could be the very top guys stay the same but rest take a hit. It'll be interesting to see.
On June 04 2017 03:52 Numy wrote: That's a solid point but it also could hint at something else. Previously marketability was a very big factor in NA esports(Still is obviously). Over time I felt teams try go for a mixture a bit bringing in all these Korean players who while they have name power don't quite have the marketability as other players. Is it possible we see a shift more back to the previous setup? There are also players who don't really have that same advertising impact but due to being NA resident in a weak position or just lack of talent pool locally been paid rather high as another VC team could just take them away. Now that kind of player may be worth less going forward.
So it could be the very top guys stay the same but rest take a hit. It'll be interesting to see.
It's even easier and more desirable now as a sponsor due to it being a safe investment. Instead of having that brand buildup go in a few months, it's going to take 2.5 years unless a team does something exceptionally dumb.
Team owners are going to import as many players as they can under the rules if there's no suitable NA talent. If they got rid of region locking in the offseason, you'd better believe somebody will back up the truck to move over a full Korean roster.
On June 03 2017 16:21 zer0das wrote: 10 million buy-in? Seems like a lot for a game that might well be dead in 10 years. But what do I know.
Especially since you're only guaranteed like what, a 1-2% share of total revenue before performance rewards? To me this seems like Riot trying to 100% offset risk onto teams with the buy-in. Is Riot even making money off of LCS yet? Because I'm trying to fathom a scenario where this makes any economic sense for the team purchasing the buy-in, and I'm really struggling.
Well then there's the 20 million Blizzard wanted for OW which might never be alive.
I mean, at least they can be excused by pie in the sky levels of engagement.
Broadcast rights for League look to be about 200-300 million over a 6 year period based on rumors? Player salaries are going to be at least 100 million. After that, as a team, you're guaranteed like 700k per year? Then you have to account for hiring support staff, rent, etc. So it's going to take like 20 years to break even as a bottom tier team. Unless sponsorships or broadcast money end up being significantly more than I'm envisioning. I suppose the broadcast rights could sell for 2x as much, but you'd still being looking at a 10 year break even point.
I also find their argument about competitiveness to be extremely half-hearted and disingenuous, but I suppose that is pretty much par for the course for Riot.
On June 03 2017 16:21 zer0das wrote: 10 million buy-in? Seems like a lot for a game that might well be dead in 10 years. But what do I know.
Especially since you're only guaranteed like what, a 1-2% share of total revenue before performance rewards? To me this seems like Riot trying to 100% offset risk onto teams with the buy-in. Is Riot even making money off of LCS yet? Because I'm trying to fathom a scenario where this makes any economic sense for the team purchasing the buy-in, and I'm really struggling.
Well then there's the 20 million Blizzard wanted for OW which might never be alive.
I mean, at least they can be excused by pie in the sky levels of engagement.
Broadcast rights for League look to be about 200-300 million over a 6 year period based on rumors? Player salaries are going to be at least 100 million. After that, as a team, you're guaranteed like 700k per year? Then you have to account for hiring support staff, rent, etc. So it's going to take like 20 years to break even as a bottom tier team. Unless sponsorships or broadcast money end up being significantly more than I'm envisioning. I suppose the broadcast rights could sell for 2x as much, but you'd still being looking at a 10 year break even point.
I also find their argument about competitiveness to be extremely half-hearted and disingenuous, but I suppose that is pretty much par for the course for Riot.
But that's just one revenue stream. They could very easily start doing spot ads like they used to do for a Game of Thrones season starting or a movie coming out(I think it was GotG1). Or have a big sponsor like they did for a while with Coke.
The 10 million buy in is only 5 million up front, the rest over a period of time(they were intentionally vague on how long that was).
I mean just look at the three biggest esports right now. LoL and CSGO are pretty close, then DOTA2 and then the emerging one is OW.
LoL - Riot Games has a proven track record with viewers and is now implementing revenue streams in NA. The biggest PC game in the World.
CSGO - Almost as big as LoL in the West, especially in Europe. Slowly growing in NA as well. However, just look at what happened when the NA teams tried to create their own franchised League. Players revolted and chose the bigger EU scene. NA Orgs have little to no control over the scene and players have huge power.
DOTA - Similar to CSGO but even worse. The real Wild Wild West. Players come and go, no real governing body or movement towards franchised systems in NA.
Overwatch - At least as expensive as LoL if not even more expensive. Blizzard has a history of fucking up their esports. Look at their biggest current esport, it's Hearthstone. Of course, with that being said it means they'll be throwing money bags to try and make OW its feature esport, so there's that to factor.
TSM already backed out of OW for being too expensive and I'm sure a bunch of other orgs felt the same. Even if League dies within 10 years, this 5 million dollar investment keeps you relevant in the biggest esport until the next one emerges.
Say you are a team like Immortals, give up on League, and to add onto that you don't make it into OW League. That leaves CSGO as your big esport, which Immortals have already had their past grievances with. CS is also much bigger in Europe than in America and you still have that shooter stigma. So you're out of the spotlight until a LoL-killer emerges if it ever does. If you stick with LoL until its death, you stay in the spotlight and then you can transfer your viewership and fanbase with you into other esports.
It's hard to even call OW emerging as the scene is worse now than it was when the game just launched. They regressed a lot with Blizzards smoke and mirrors OWL stuff.
Blizzard doesn't know how to run E-Sports. The buy-in for League... meh, there are enough people getting involved from the real professional sports in North America to warrant the entry price. I wonder how things will look for endorsements, livestreaming, etc.
The one thing that doesn't make a whole lot of sense is having Riot involved in the Player's Association.
On June 05 2017 09:29 StarStruck wrote: Blizzard doesn't know how to run E-Sports. The buy-in for League... meh, there are enough people getting involved from the real professional sports in North America to warrant the entry price. I wonder how things will look for endorsements, livestreaming, etc.
The one thing that doesn't make a whole lot of sense is having Riot involved in the Player's Association.
We'll be funding the launch of the Association, however the representation that the players vote on and elect is responsible solely to them. The goal is that this Association is an independent voice of the players to work with Riot and the teams. It's our hope and expectation that as the association grows, the players assume full financial control over the organization — we believe this is the most effective way to give the process a kick start and provide them with an official voice.
can people read the article first? or the thread? this was literally cleared up in the first few posts in this thread.
On June 05 2017 09:29 StarStruck wrote: Blizzard doesn't know how to run E-Sports. The buy-in for League... meh, there are enough people getting involved from the real professional sports in North America to warrant the entry price. I wonder how things will look for endorsements, livestreaming, etc.
The one thing that doesn't make a whole lot of sense is having Riot involved in the Player's Association.
We'll be funding the launch of the Association, however the representation that the players vote on and elect is responsible solely to them. The goal is that this Association is an independent voice of the players to work with Riot and the teams. It's our hope and expectation that as the association grows, the players assume full financial control over the organization — we believe this is the most effective way to give the process a kick start and provide them with an official voice.
can people read the article first? or the thread? this was literally cleared up in the first few posts in this thread.
I mean thats the stance yeah. but like...
A. Thats a hope and expectation not a reality yet. B. Solely financial control, or all control? C. When something gets jump started by money you gotta wonder about the psychology of being indebted to riot when it comes to earnest negotiations about it. it WILL affect negotiations early on. and early negotiations are the important ones because you have to fight for every inch past that. And with imports, players are exceptionally disposable in case of strike, while teams and riot especially have absolute authority with lock outs.
On June 05 2017 09:29 StarStruck wrote: Blizzard doesn't know how to run E-Sports. The buy-in for League... meh, there are enough people getting involved from the real professional sports in North America to warrant the entry price. I wonder how things will look for endorsements, livestreaming, etc.
The one thing that doesn't make a whole lot of sense is having Riot involved in the Player's Association.
We'll be funding the launch of the Association, however the representation that the players vote on and elect is responsible solely to them. The goal is that this Association is an independent voice of the players to work with Riot and the teams. It's our hope and expectation that as the association grows, the players assume full financial control over the organization — we believe this is the most effective way to give the process a kick start and provide them with an official voice.
can people read the article first? or the thread? this was literally cleared up in the first few posts in this thread.
I mean thats the stance yeah. but like...
A. Thats a hope and expectation not a reality yet. B. Solely financial control, or all control? C. When something gets jump started by money you gotta wonder about the psychology of being indebted to riot when it comes to earnest negotiations about it. it WILL affect negotiations early on. and early negotiations are the important ones because you have to fight for every inch past that. And with imports, players are exceptionally disposable in case of strike, while teams and riot especially have absolute authority with lock outs.
These people we're talking about are shut ins with crap life skills. A lot of them can barely function outside of professional league. They need somebody to give them a lineup to pick from and nobody in the scene has the ability to vet people for something like this than Riot does.
It's funny how now a days corporations are like the Russians of the 90a. Always the villains! Even when they do good things so many people assume it's for evil reasons
On June 05 2017 13:08 JimmiC wrote: It's funny how now a days corporations are like the Russians of the 90a. Always the villains! Even when they do good things so many people assume it's for evil reasons
I'm not assuming riot is setting up a players union specifically to manipulate it down the road, im just wondering whether or not the players union will be as aggressive in defending the rights of its members as it needs to be if it gets started on riot cash.
I'm comparing it's situation to the NFLPA an the NFL. where the NFLPA is very little bargaining power, and the players suffer as a result in negotiations. In the NFL compensation isn't the issue it's injury and post retirement health coverage that is the sticking point. LCSPU issues would probably be somewhere around work hours, practice regimes and compensation and worker expectations in terms of hours spent on the game in non-paid hours.
But also "corportations" have been an american staple as "the bad guy" in fiction and pop culture since the age of the robber barons of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan etc.
On June 05 2017 13:08 JimmiC wrote: It's funny how now a days corporations are like the Russians of the 90a. Always the villains! Even when they do good things so many people assume it's for evil reasons
I'm not assuming riot is setting up a players union specifically to manipulate it down the road, im just wondering whether or not the players union will be as aggressive in defending the rights of its members as it needs to be if it gets started on riot cash.
I'm comparing it's situation to the NFLPA an the NFL. where the NFLPA is very little bargaining power, and the players suffer as a result in negotiations. In the NFL compensation isn't the issue it's injury and post retirement health coverage that is the sticking point. LCSPU issues would probably be somewhere around work hours, practice regimes and compensation and worker expectations in terms of hours spent on the game in non-paid hours.
But also "corportations" have been an american staple as "the bad guy" in fiction and pop culture since the age of the robber barons of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan etc.
That's the problem for the Players. They seem to not understand the value of a players union, otherwise, they would've started one. Riot wants to start the brand new age of NA LCS where everything is set up right from the get-go that will set the platform for the next 10+ years of NA LoL. That includes a Players Union, and if the players aren't ready to set it up, then Riot thinks it's up to them to help them get it started.
Like, if the players wanted to start a player's union without Riot, they could have done so at any point in the last five years. Or ten years, if you count other esports. But it never happened.
So Riot creates one, goes to pretty absurd lengths to make absolutely sure it's independent except for the fact that they're the ones that pay for everything upfront, and then everyone is like "wow you gotta wonder about the psychology of such an action".
On June 06 2017 00:34 GrandInquisitor wrote: Like, if the players wanted to start a player's union without Riot, they could have done so at any point in the last five years. Or ten years, if you count other esports. But it never happened.
So Riot creates one, goes to pretty absurd lengths to make absolutely sure it's independent except for the fact that they're the ones that pay for everything upfront, and then everyone is like "wow you gotta wonder about the psychology of such an action".
The players are fucking dumb. On three seperate occasions, the TSM house almost burned down because they can't use a fucking microwave properly. Almost none of them drive. Some of them dropped out of highschool. Most of them never went to college. I bet some players don't even know why they would need a union. Look at CS:GO. The players had an option to have a regular league that would have made them more money like League does, but they had a hissyfit and veto'd it.
The players probably wouldn't make a union and if they did they'd have nobody to turn to but Riot or the teams anyway to get it done properly. So the options are "that seems kinda sketchy until they have complete control over it", "they have it, but it sucks and doesn't do anything for them", and "they have 0 bargaining power and will get reamed every chance they get."
I sincerely hope part of the guiding process involves hiring a firm to represent them properly. That was probably the biggest sticking points of why it couldn't happen earlier. lack of money to actually hire good representation that would actually be of use to players.
On June 02 2017 07:49 red_ wrote: Riot's cut being 30% seems huge, but I don't know the exact structure of other 'pro' sports(although I know revenue splits tend to be at or above 50% pretty much for players), and I know Riot is a more active participant in this case in comparison to say the NFL(the monumental difference being that they own the game, it's an actual IP not a sport, and they provide venues, not just a commissioner and league office staff).
in 2014 the NFL (the most owner/league focused of the big three) made about 12 Billion. We know how much was shared because of the Green Bay Packers, who release said info as the only publicly owned team. the rev share total works out to about 7.2 Billion for 2014. So the NFL kept ~40% of revenue. This was during the transition from non profit to for profit.
Salary Cap was 133 Million per team that year, which would work out to 4.256 Billion if every team spent at cap. (which they did not)
So it looks like riot took the NFL proportions and used those. Though the NFL is the greediest of sports leagues.
i am wary about Riot fronting the money to create a players union. how much will they be influencing that union. because once the union is founded, they are at odds with it in negotiations. But im overwhelmingly pro labor and pro union in these types of situations.
As for the revenue. It's important to note that NFL teams keep Local Revenue (tickets concessions etc team sponsorship/partnership). Something that is a lot harder to come by for LCS teams.
I have a few comments to clarify the difference between the NFL and the LCS that will make the % seems less insane.
In the NFL the players get 48% of revenue, this is regardless of the salary cap (which is just set to 1/30th of 48%) any money the owners don't pay in salary directly is sent to the union who then issues a makeup check to all of the players. Thus the owners (who are like the team owners in this situation) get, basically 52%. Now, Riot in this scenario is kind of like the league, but it is actually more like the broadcast partners (NBC, CBS, Fox) which don't have explicit revenue share agreements, but instead make money from their broadcasts. Most of them actually don't make that much on the NFL, but keep it because it is basically a revenue-neutral (with upside) way of getting eyeballs onto their sunday night programming.
On June 05 2017 09:29 StarStruck wrote: Blizzard doesn't know how to run E-Sports. The buy-in for League... meh, there are enough people getting involved from the real professional sports in North America to warrant the entry price. I wonder how things will look for endorsements, livestreaming, etc.
The one thing that doesn't make a whole lot of sense is having Riot involved in the Player's Association.
We'll be funding the launch of the Association, however the representation that the players vote on and elect is responsible solely to them. The goal is that this Association is an independent voice of the players to work with Riot and the teams. It's our hope and expectation that as the association grows, the players assume full financial control over the organization — we believe this is the most effective way to give the process a kick start and provide them with an official voice.
can people read the article first? or the thread? this was literally cleared up in the first few posts in this thread.
I mean thats the stance yeah. but like...
A. Thats a hope and expectation not a reality yet. B. Solely financial control, or all control? C. When something gets jump started by money you gotta wonder about the psychology of being indebted to riot when it comes to earnest negotiations about it. it WILL affect negotiations early on. and early negotiations are the important ones because you have to fight for every inch past that. And with imports, players are exceptionally disposable in case of strike, while teams and riot especially have absolute authority with lock outs.
On June 05 2017 13:08 JimmiC wrote: It's funny how now a days corporations are like the Russians of the 90a. Always the villains! Even when they do good things so many people assume it's for evil reasons
what they try to do in my opinion is getting a lot more money into it. this will result in teams taking the whole thing a lot more serious and take the prefessionalism of LoL esports to another level. they hope it can become similar to the Korean szene. Maybe they even hope to get some really talented korean players over to the NA szene. just to step up the overall skill level.
this "shit" failed in SC2. at some point there were korean players all over the world, getting those tournament spots over the "hometown favorites". that is not a good thing for the viewercounts.