DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN ESPORTS: IN SEARCH OF A SUPREME COURT FOR ESPORTS

1. INTRODUCTION

The entertainment industry is a dynamic phenomenon that generates significant revenue and contributes substantially to both national and global economies. Within this sector, the esports and video game markets have experienced an unprecedented surge in interest—particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, as global lockdowns prompted a search for new forms of digital leisure. Today, the popularity of esports rivals that of traditional sports (albeit the direct link between esports and sports is not generally accepted), particularly among younger demographics, making it an increasingly attractive destination for large-scale corporate investment.

Despite this growth, the professionalization of the industry has created a complex web of legal relationships that remains inadequately addressed by national, international, and EU law. This regulatory lag is further complicated by the transnational nature of the industry, which often involves stakeholders across different continents. Consequently, a regulatory vacuum exists across both private and public law.

Key legal ambiguities include the classification of esports performance (whether as a sporting activity, artistic performance, or entrepreneurship) and the uncertain status of professional players as either employees or independent contractors. This uncertainty extends to the legal regime of player contracts, social security protections, health and safety standards, and collective bargaining. Furthermore, the industry faces challenges regarding the status of esports organizations, the dominance of game developers (publishers), the legalities of streaming, and integrity issues such as match-fixing and doping (both physiological and technical). Additionally, concerns persist regarding hate speech at public events, data privacy, the protection of minors, and the intricate web of intellectual property rights.

Overarching all these challenges is the need for effective dispute resolution. Traditional venues, such as national courts or general arbitration boards, often lack the technical expertise required for this niche sector. Consequently, there is a growing demand for specialized alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that guarantee industry-specific knowledge.

2. DISPUTES ARISING FROM ESPORTS AND VIDEO GAMES

Within the esports and video game sector, one can identify a diverse range of disputes.1 For the purposes of this paper, these disputes are classified into the intellectual property-related disputes, contract-related disputes, and market-related disputes. The scope of each category is outlined below. Of these three categories, disputes involving the infringement of intellectual property (IP) rights are currently the most prevalent, specifically those regarding copyrights, licensing, and industrial property rights.

Additionally, the industry frequently faces specific sporting-related disputes arising from match-fixing and "technical doping" – where players gain an unfair competitive advantage through unauthorized hardware or software modifications. This area of disputes falls outside the scope of this paper, which rather focuses on legal disputes, i.e., disputes arising from the breach of generally binding law or legally enforceable contractual obligations, rather than on "fair play disputes," which are governed by the internal, autonomous rules ensuring the equality of opportunities and competitive balance in the competitions.

Still, even with respect to legal disputes, given the technical complexity and broad scope of these issues, traditional litigation is often prohibitively time-consuming, costly, and inefficient for the parties involved. Consequently, the industry has actively sought to develop specialized venues and methods for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Some experts propose a bifurcated approach, separating different categories of disputes into specialized resolution tracks to account for their unique characteristics. However, our view is that such a fragmented strategy carries the risk of procedural multiplicity, forcing parties to initiate several parallel proceedings before different bodies—particularly in complex cases that involve overlapping legal issues. Therefore, we advocate the establishment of a unified worldwide dispute resolution system. Nevertheless, these attempts have been unsuccessful thus far.

2.1 Copyright and Other IP Rights-related Disputes

Among the most frequent legal conflicts in the sector are those involving copyright and other intellectual property (IP) rights. In the rapidly evolving worlds of esports and video games, IP protection requires constant vigilance. The scope of copyrightable subject matter is broad, encompassing the narrative elements of video games, their unique gameplay mechanics (often protected as know-how), character names, and the audio-visual content generated through streaming and influencer promotions. Consequently, copyright serves as the foundational legal pillar alongside other forms of industrial property protection.

Given that most esports events and video games are broadcast live or shared via digital platforms, unauthorized online transmission represents the most prevalent form of infringement. This streaming content generally falls into two categories: real-time live streams and on-demand video (VOD), both of which present distinct challenges for rights holders.2 One of the most widely utilized copyright enforcement mechanisms is the Content ID system, which automatically detects the unauthorized use of protected material within videos and streams, enabling the rapid removal of infringing content. These platform-based monitoring tools flag potential violations, alerting the legal teams of event organizers to suspected infringements. Effective enforcement, however, necessitates seamless technical cooperation between tournament organizers and the digital platforms broadcasting the stream.

This cooperation relies on the real-time exchange of data. A prime example is YouTube’s copyright management system, which underwent significant updates in 2019. YouTube employs a 'three-strike' policy that escalates penalties with each successive offense: an initial infraction may result in the loss of advertising revenue, while a third offense culminates in video removal and the permanent termination of the infringer’s account. This framework empowers rights holders to file formal DMCA or copyright complaints, prompting immediate investigation by the platform.3

The engagement of the fan community as a tool for IP enforcement represents a highly unconventional departure from traditional copyright protection strategies. While a vast, undefined audience typically presents an increased risk of infringement, strategic positioning by developers can transform this community into a proactive line of defense. Through brand loyalty and engagement, fans often become the first to identify and report illegal streams or pirated assets. This 'crowdsourced' enforcement creates a collective front against infringement, built primarily on the fidelity of the player base.

Beyond community-led efforts, the judiciary continues to grapple with novel IP challenges, as seen in the notable California litigation between choreographer Kyle Hanagami and Epic Games. Hanagami—renowned for his work with artists such as Britney Spears and Justin Bieber—sued the developer in 2022, alleging that the 'It’s Complicated' emote in Fortnite illegally copied his copyrighted choreography.

While U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson initially dismissed the case, ruling that the sequence of movements did not qualify for protection, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently overturned that decision. The appellate court criticized the lower court’s reduction of complex choreography to a series of individual 'poses,' emphasizing that copyright analysis must remain consistent across different art forms and recognize the creative expression inherent in choreographed sequences.4

Another significant category of litigation involves disputes between game developers and members of the music industry. These typically arise from the unauthorized use of copyrighted compositions or lyrics—often utilized as slogans, jingles, or background music— without the explicit consent of the rights holders. Beyond copyright, the esports and video game sector relies heavily on trademarks, logos, and industrial designs. Game titles are frequently registered as word marks, while distinctive visual elements or unique audio cues are protected as figurative or sound trademarks.

A compelling legal question remains whether game mechanics are better suited for copyright protection or design rights. The latter can be obtained relatively quickly and cost-effectively, covering everything from hardware (keyboards and headsets) to Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs). Furthermore, developers often seek patent protection for unique technological innovations. This is particularly prevalent in the development of advanced motion-capture technologies, which track player movements and translate them into in-game actions. By patenting these processes, developers safeguard their R&D investments against replication by competitors, securing a strategic advantage in a high-stakes market.

Infringement across these IP categories frequently results in litigation, particularly regarding game imitations. A landmark example is the General Court of the European Union’s ruling in Case T-700/18 (October 10, 2019). The dispute concerned a likelihood of confusion between a new EU trademark application for 'DUNGEONS' (filed by Kalypso Media Group GmbH for goods in Classes 9, 28, and 41) and the earlier 'DUNGEONS & DRAGONS' mark owned by Wizards of the Coast LLC. Although the applicant argued that the EUIPO Board of Appeal had erred in assessing the public's level of attention and the distinctive character of the marks, the General Court dismissed the action in its entirety. The court upheld the earlier findings of the EUIPO Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal, confirming that the high degree of similarity between the signs created a genuine risk of consumer confusion.5

In contrast, the General Court of the European Union, in Case T-491/22, affirmed that no likelihood of confusion existed between two competing figurative marks. The dispute involved an EU trademark application for a 'happy' spherical figure—characterized by wide-open eyes, a top hat, straight arms, and short legs—and an earlier mark featuring a one-eyed, slightly deformed character with one arm bent and the other resting on a cane. The Court concluded that the signs were visually distinct when viewed as a whole. In this instance, the applicant, Zitro International Sàrl, sought the annulment of the Fourth Board of Appeal’s decision (Case R 2005/2021-4). However, both the EUIPO Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal had previously rejected the opposition. The General Court ultimately dismissed the action, finding no grounds for confusion between the two characters, as their specific design elements were clearly defined and visually disparate.6

These judicial decisions underscore that the esports and video game industries possess significant potential for intellectual property disputes.

2.2. Contract-related Disputes

The performance of professional esports players within teams is frequently built upon the same factual and legal foundations as that of traditional professional athletes.7 However, for individual athletes who train independently and utilize their own hardware, alternative contractual arrangements, such as freelancer agreements or pure sponsorship contracts, remain a common alternative.8

In this context, the Paris Court of Justice issued a groundbreaking decision on 27 March, 2024, with significant implications for esports labor relations. By reclassifying an esports player’s service agreement as an employment contract, the court signaled a fundamental shift in how professional relationships are regulated within this rapidly evolving sector. This ruling underscores the urgent need for a clearer application of labour law within the digital entertainment industry and potentially establishes a precedent for future jurisdictional disputes regarding player status.9

Aside from the labour law status of gamers, currently, a substantial volume of litigation involves disputes between players and their respective clubs, teams, or leagues over the unpaid bonuses and other contractually mandated benefits. The sector presently lacks uniform standards for player contracts, as well as harmonized rules for player protection and dispute resolution. While some organizations have issued internal regulations to standardize contracting procedures, the majority lack a formal framework. Consequently, many professional player contracts contain highly lopsided provisions, such as clauses allowing for the imposition of fines or the unilateral reduction of salaries when a player is 'benched' and replaced. Other contentious provisions include position-change clauses and non-competition agreements, which frequently spark litigation.10 Ultimately, these provisions create a significant imbalance of power between players and organizations, serving as a primary catalyst for legal conflict.

2.3. Esports Market-related Disputes

Another prevalent form of litigation involves misleading advertising, a marketing tool frequently utilized to boost the popularity and profitability of the entertainment industry. Some advertising campaigns are comparative in nature, employing false or distorted information to gain an unfair competitive advantage. Most often, these discrepancies concern gameplay fidelity and features. It is a common phenomenon for developers to promote a video game with specific qualitative characteristics that the final product simply does not possess.

Furthermore, streaming platforms and operators often employ 'bait-and-switch' tactics to attract new users. They may advertise 'free' benefits that are either unilaterally canceled post-registration or revealed to be conditional upon undisclosed requirements, such as completing extensive marketing questionnaires. Failing to provide adequate notice of these conditions constitutes deceptive advertising.

Disputes also arise when operators guarantee consumers specific in-game rewards for reaching certain levels, only for those rewards to be functionally unattainable. These advantages are often tied to conditions that an average player could not reasonably fulfill without purchasing 'pay-to-win' boosters or microtransactions. Finally, misleading advertising may involve the promotion of a game’s narrative or plot, which, upon release, proves to be significantly at odds with the advertised reality.

3. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN ESPORTS AND VIDEO GAMES

The unique characteristics of esports and video game disputes necessitate a tailored approach to conflict resolution—a need that is increasingly met by Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms. ADR has emerged as a robust alternative to traditional litigation across all economic sectors, and the field of (e)sports is no exception.

The most prominent example in the sporting world is arbitration before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne. Other established avenues include general commercial arbitration and mediation. Furthermore, specialized expert centers are rapidly emerging to address the nuances of the digital arena; a prime example is the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, which focuses on the intersection of technology and intellectual property.

Due to their specialized personnel and industry-specific frameworks, these commissions and centers offer parties distinct procedural and material advantages over national courts. The following section outlines these advantages while detailing the specific ADR methods currently available within the esports ecosystem.

3.1. Advantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) offers several distinct advantages over traditional litigation, making it a flexible and attractive forum for the complex world of esports. These mechanisms facilitate swift resolutions characterized by high levels of technical expertise. This section examines the primary benefits of ADR, focusing specifically on arbitration.

Neutrality and Independence. The foremost advantage is the neutrality of the adjudicating body, which encompasses both personal and institutional independence. Personal independence ensures that the roster of arbitrators consists of industry experts—specialists in esports and video game law—who possess no personal or proprietary interest in the outcome. To further bolster neutrality, these rosters typically include international experts. Institutional independence guarantees that the body operates autonomously, free from the material or financial influence of the parties involved.

Procedural Unity and Efficiency. Another significant advantage is the unitary nature of the proceedings. In arbitration, parties typically agree to resolve their disputes through a single-instance procedure. While they may opt for a multi-instance (appellate) structure, the expertise and moral standing of the arbitrators generally render an appeal stage unnecessary. This stands in stark contrast to traditional litigation, where the availability of ordinary and extraordinary remedies often leads to protracted delays. Furthermore, resolving disputes before a single international body, regardless of the parties' home jurisdictions, enhances legal predictability and ensures the consistent application of law, thereby promoting legal certainty.

Confidentiality. Confidentiality remains a cornerstone of ADR. Unlike national court proceedings, which are governed by the principle of public hearings and accessible judicial decisions, arbitration is inherently private. This obligation of secrecy is often the decisive factor for entities wishing to protect sensitive commercial data or brand reputation from public scrutiny.

Finality and Enforcement. The finality of arbitral awards is a direct consequence of the single-instance nature of the proceedings. By entering arbitration, parties commit to a binding and authoritative resolution. If a decision does not automatically constitute an enforceable title (such as a legally recognized document for execution), parties may utilize alternative enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance. Examples include termination clauses that allow for the severance of all contractual ties with a non-compliant party, or publication clauses. Under the latter, the prevailing party may publish the case outcome at the losing party's expense if the latter fails to respect the decision. Such a 'reputational penalty' effectively leverages the loss of confidentiality to compel adherence to the award.11

Particularly in non-European legal systems—most notably in Asia—the breach of moral, ethical, or gentlemen’s agreements carries direct consequences for future business relations. Consequently, it is often more advantageous for a losing party to honor an adjudicatory decision voluntarily, even in instances where the ruling does not technically constitute an enforceable title under national law. In these contexts, the preservation of commercial reputation and the ability to secure future contracts act as powerful informal enforcement mechanisms.

Nevertheless, in the vast majority of cases, the decisions of arbitral bodies fall under the 1958 United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention). This treaty ensures that arbitral awards are recognized with the same legal force as the judgments of national courts, generally without requiring a de novo examination of the merits. By virtue of this Convention, enforceability is guaranteed across all signatory states. This provides parties with the assurance that a decision will be directly enforceable in the jurisdiction where the counterparty is domiciled, effectively neutralizing the challenges posed by jurisdictional plurality and competing legal systems.

3.2. The First Attempt at an Arbitration Body in Esports – ACES of WESA

Numerous entities within the esports ecosystem have gradually been established to serve as global umbrella organizations for national federations, including the offer to resolve disputes before specialized expert panels. One such body to implement its own adjudicatory authority was the World Esports Association (WESA), founded in 2016.12 WESA established the Arbitration Court for Esports (ACES), which was designed to be the industry's first specialized arbitral tribunal.13 However, despite its pioneering status, ACES failed to achieve widespread industry acceptance. Its tenure ultimately ended alongside its parent organization, following a resolution by its general assembly on 16 February, 2025, WESA entered liquidation and was subsequently wound up.14

3.3. Currently Active Esports Federations and Their Dispute-Resolution Mechanisms

Despite the dissolution of WESA, several competing entities continue to vie for global representation of the esports sector. The least known among these is the International Federation of Esports (IFES), headquartered in India,15 however, its public documentation currently lacks any specific framework for dispute resolution. In contrast, the Global Esports Federation (GEF)16 explicitly stipulates in its Constitution that any disputes fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne.17 Similarly, the International Esports Federation (IESF)18 recognizes the adjudicatory competence of CAS within its Statutes. Finally, the Esports World Federation (EWSF)19 takes a different approach, recommending that its members utilize the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services provided by the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center. This diversity of venues underscores the lack of a singular, unified judicial authority within the global esports landscape.20

3.4. The Attempt at Specialization: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

Given its pivotal role, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the WIPO Center) merits separate consideration. It provides time- and cost-efficient Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) options—including mediation, arbitration, expedited arbitration, and expert determination—enabling private parties to resolve domestic and cross-border commercial disputes centered on intellectual property (IP) and technology. Furthermore, the WIPO Center is the global leader in domain name dispute resolution under the WIPO-designed Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

Over the years, the WIPO Center has adjudicated numerous cases involving video games and esports. These disputes typically encompass a broad range of IP-related issues, including branding (e.g., trademark usage in logos or merchandising), copyright (e.g., narrative storylines, gameplay mechanics, music, user-generated content, and the broadcasting of esports events), and design rights (e.g., product packaging). Additionally, the Center handles patent disputes involving hardware such as consoles, VR headsets, and accessories, as well as conflicts involving trade secrets, R&D agreements, technology transfers, and software licensing.21

To facilitate access to these services, the WIPO Center provides a series of model arbitration clauses22 that entities can incorporate directly into their commercial contracts and internal regulations. The Center also maintains a curated roster of neutrals—including arbitrators and mediators—who are recognized experts in IP law. This list includes specialists from both academia and legal practice, covering diverse fields such as technology, international law, and marketing.

3.5. The Unification Attempt: International Games and Esports Tribunal (2025)

A prominent example of a specialized arbitral body is the International Games and Esports Tribunal (IGET),23 established as a non-profit joint initiative by the Esports Integrity Commission (ESIC)24 and the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center (WIPO AMC).25 The tribunal’s primary mandate is to safeguard the integrity of esports by overseeing the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of all forms of competitive malpractice, including match-fixing and doping. This initiative aligns with the cooperation between ESIC and the International Olympic Committee (IOC)—specifically the IOC’s Olympic Movement Unit on the Prevention of the Manipulation of Competitions (OM Unit PMC).26 Through a formal letter of intent, these organizations have committed to exchanging information and best practices in the fight against corruption, with IGET serving as the primary mechanism for implementing ESIC’s enforcement obligations.

IGET maintains a dedicated panel of arbitrators and mediators who possess specialized knowledge of both the technical and legal frameworks of the gaming industry. This dual expertise enables the Tribunal to resolve a broad spectrum of conflicts, ranging from integrity-related infractions and player contract disputes to complex intellectual property issues and commercial disagreements regarding tournament organization rights. With the inauguration of IGET, the former ESIC Independent Appeals Panel was dissolved and its jurisdiction transferred to the Tribunal. Consequently, all appeals and disciplinary proceedings previously handled under ESIC’s codes are now to be adjudicated under IGET’s authority, following an update to the ESIC Disciplinary Procedure rules to reflect this transition.27

The collaboration between ESIC and WIPO AMC in creating this joint international tribunal serves as clear evidence that the commitment to maintaining integrity within the esports and video game sector is being pursued with rigorous institutional oversight.

3.6. An Attempt with a Partial Scope: The Arbitration Platform of Riot Games (2024)

In addition to the general ADR platforms discussed above, several specialized mechanisms have been introduced for specific titles and leagues. A notable recent example is the arbitration platform launched by Riot Games28 across its EMEA (Europe, the Middle East, and Africa)29 esports portfolio. This dedicated system is designed to resolve disputes involving unpaid wages, bonuses, prize money, and transfer disagreements for League of Legends and VALORANT players and teams.30

The initiative aims to provide an independent forum that fosters 'healthy, professional esports ecosystems' while promoting 'contractual stability and integrity.' The procedure is governed by a closed panel of 14 arbitrators, with the law firm Martens Rechtsanwälte overseeing the selection process to ensure the court remains operationally separate from Riot. Furthermore, a Legal Aid Fund was established to assist parties who would otherwise be unable to afford the costs of arbitration.

To maximize efficiency, the procedure is primarily written, typically allowing for only one formal submission per party. Notably, decisions are issued ex aequo et bono (based on equity and justice). This allows arbitrators to bypass the strict enforcement of contractual terms if such an application would yield an unfair or inequitable result, applying general principles of justice instead.

However, this Riot’s proprietary mechanism has raised significant legal concerns regarding competition law and the potential abuse of a dominant market position. Although the system is theoretically voluntary, the company’s objective to integrate arbitration clauses into more than 80% of its contracts within a few years could practically eliminate alternative venues. Given Riot’s immense market influence, such standardization may effectively restrict access to other forums. Furthermore, the company’s indirect influence over the closed list of arbitrators and its control over the Legal Aid Fund have sparked debate regarding the true impartiality of the system.31

3.7. National Attempts: An Example of the Sports Arbitration Tribunal of the Slovak Olympic and Sports Committee (2025)

Following the precedent set by Thailand—where the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) was established under the Arbitration Center Act 2550 (2007) to handle esports matters—other nations are adopting similar localized models.

Within the European Union, the challenge of sports dispute resolution became a priority for the Slovak Republic. The Slovak Act on Sports (2015) initially mandated that national sports associations establish internal bodies for disciplinary proceedings and dispute resolution. While this originally included even specialized panels for doping cases, that agenda was later centralized under a committee established by the Ministry of Tourism and Sports to ensure the necessary level of technical and legal expertise.

However, maintaining these internal bodies by national federations proved practically and financially unsustainable for many national associations. Consequently, the Slovak Olympic and Sports Committee (SOSC) advocated for the creation of a centralized dispute resolution authority in the sports sector. This led to a significant amendment to the Act on Sports, effective as of 1 July, 2025, which authorized the SOSC to establish a unified body to provide first-instance and appellate dispute resolution services for associations choosing to submit to this body.

Under this new legislative framework, the SOSC, together with the Ministry of Sport, enacted the Statutes of the Sports Arbitration Tribunal (SAT) in September 2025. While modeled after international sports and commercial arbitration frameworks, the SAT was not formed as a 'court of arbitration' in the strict sense under the Slovak civil law. Because Slovak law currently restricts traditional arbitration to civil and commercial matters solely—excluding labour disputes and disciplinary sanctioning—the SAT derives its legal authority directly from the Act on Sports. This statutory basis, supported by state funding, ensures its institutional stability.

It is now incumbent upon individual national associations and other entities—possibly including esports associations, which are not yet formally recognized as national sports associations in Slovakia— to decide whether to maintain their own internal structures or delegate the respective competences to the SAT. Enforcement of SAT awards is thereby to be guaranteed either through the federations' remaining disciplinary bodies or via specialized enforcement mechanisms established at the SAT level—including fines and suspension mechanisms.

Nevertheless, the SAT explicitly recognizes the possibility for parties to seek a review of its awards by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne. While it yet remains to be seen whether CAS will affirm its jurisdiction over disputes decided by SAT, the SAT’s statutes clearly position CAS as the final adjudicatory instance, aligning Slovak domestic practice with the global sports law (and esports law) ecosystems. At the same time, there is also the possibility to have the SAT decision reviewed by national courts, which can never be entirely excluded. However, this should only materialize in cases of serious breaches of due process by the SAT.

3.8. Certainty Instead of Failing Attempts? The Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne

Having discussed general arbitration mechanisms and specialized dispute resolution bodies - some of which raise concerns regarding impartiality - we now turn to the established best practices of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). As traditional sports principles are increasingly translated into the digital arena, the CAS model serves as a vital source of inspiration for esports ADR as well.32 It might also act as the actual supreme court in the esports ecosystem.33

he jurisdictional reach of CAS into esports is currently being tested by the Bahrain Esports Federation (BESF). The dispute stems from a controversial refereeing decision during the EA Sports FC tournament at the Asian Games. After Bahrain’s Abdulaziz Faqeehi seemingly secured a victory against South Korea’s Kwak Jun-hyok, a technical referee unexpectedly ordered a replay of the deciding set following a protest by the Korean player.

The BESF alleged several procedural failures: the absence of a referee during the match, a lack of transparent reasoning for the replay, and the isolation of the Bahraini player from his coach while his opponent maintained full access to support. Most significantly, the BESF raised allegations of a conflict of interest, noting that the technical director overseeing the match was a South Korean national.34 This appeal could be a landmark case for CAS. The tribunal should not only decide the merits of the refereeing decision, but also tackle foundational legal questions, such as the legal subordination of esports to traditional sports frameworks and the validity of esports-specific arbitration clauses.

Unfortunately, since no more information has been published on the fate of this case, it seems that CAS has not been given the chance to expressly decide on the respective issues.

4. CONCLUSIONS

The esports and video game industry is a rapidly evolving global sector with a substantial economic footprint. As with any complex market, disputes are an inherent byproduct of its intricate legal relationships. These conflicts are typically multidisciplinary. Resolving them requires not only legal acumen but also specialized expertise in technology, software development, design, marketing, and international trade. Furthermore, the cross-border nature of the industry inevitably leads to a "conflict of laws," where multiple jurisdictions overlap.

To address these challenges, various Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms have emerged, with arbitration being the most prominent. The increasing plurality of market stakeholders has led to the development of highly specialized, private arbitration platforms, such as the proprietary system established by Riot Games. Simultaneously, industry-wide collaboration is gaining momentum, exemplified by the International Games and Esports Tribunal (IGET)—a joint initiative between the Esports Integrity Commission (ESIC) and the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.

The prevailing trend is the shift toward an autonomous dispute resolution system. This model relies on expert-led adjudication by arbitrators possessing high moral and professional standing. The enforceability of these decisions is secured either through membership-based "loyalty" principles within organizations or through the New York Convention. The former often proves more efficient, especially when the ADR mechanism—such as the Slovak Sports Arbitration Tribunal (SAT)—operates as a specific expert body rather than a traditional arbitral tribunal.

Finally, there is still the possibility of CAS taking over the supreme authority in the world of esports just like it has done in the case of traditional sports. International federations such as the IESF are recognizing CAS, and at least in the doping-related cases where IESF is a WADA signatory, the final authority is undoubtedly the CAS. Should, in the future, CAS affirm its jurisdiction over esports in general, the internal diversification and creation of specialized 'esports panels' within CAS might soon follow. We contend that this represents the optimal model for international ADR in the sector. By positioning CAS as the supreme appellate instance, the industry can foster legal certainty and develop a uniform body of case law, mirroring the successful evolution of traditional sports law over the past decades.

Bibliography