Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. The mention of any products, services, or methods does not constitute an endorsement.
For much of the last esports investment boom, the business plan sounded simple enough. Build expensive rosters, enter as many major games as possible, grow social audiences, attach sponsor logos to the resulting attention, and assume the rising value of competitive gaming would eventually turn scale into profit. That model produced famous brands and enormous audiences, but it also produced organizations whose costs expanded faster than their dependable revenue.
The correction that followed was painful because esports never developed the same economic foundation as traditional professional sports. Media-rights income remained limited, many broadcasts stayed free to watch, publishers retained control over the games themselves, and fans often followed individual players or titles as strongly as they followed team brands. When investors and advertisers became less willing to support losses during the esports downturn that accelerated in 2023, organizations consolidated, cut costs, or began rebuilding their business models around more dependable income.
The post-hype era is producing a different type of organization. The teams with the strongest survival plans are building hybrid businesses in which competitive results still matter, but the roster is one part of a wider commercial system. Publisher revenue sharing, digital items, creator businesses, direct fan memberships, merchandise, marketing services, live events, licensing, and content operations are increasingly being combined so that no single source of income has to support the entire company.
Sponsorship Money Could Never Carry Everything Forever
Sponsorship remains one of the largest sources of income in esports, and there is no serious business case for abandoning it. The problem is concentration. A team that depends heavily on a handful of annual brand deals can lose a large percentage of its revenue when marketing budgets shrink, a sponsor changes strategy, or a game suddenly becomes less attractive to advertisers.
Esports also has a structural problem that traditional sports teams do not face in the same way. A football or basketball club can sell local broadcast rights, tickets, premium seating, concessions, venue sponsorships, licensed products, and other inventory tied to a physical league system. Esports teams usually do not own the game, the league infrastructure, or the broadcast platform. Their commercial rights are often shared with publishers and tournament operators, which leaves fewer assets that teams can independently sell.
Riot Games effectively acknowledged this weakness when it changed the business model for its top League of Legends ecosystems. Riot said the newer model would give teams fixed stipends and shares of digital esports content revenue, reducing the degree to which team economics depended on sponsorship sales. Its Global Revenue Pool allocates 50 percent through general shares, 35 percent according to competitive performance, and 15 percent through a fandom component tied to brand and audience strength.
That design matters because it puts digital fan spending closer to the center of team economics. Sponsorship inventory has a natural ceiling. Digital goods can be sold to fans globally without adding another logo position to a jersey or another brand segment to a broadcast.
Publisher Revenue Sharing Is Becoming a Core Business Line
VALORANT provides one of the strongest examples of the new publisher-team relationship. Riot said that its 2024 Champions Collection and team skins generated enough sales for more than $44 million to be shared with partnered VCT organizations. The 2025 Team Capsules continued the same idea, giving fans a direct way to buy team-themed digital products while sending a portion of the proceeds to the organizations.
For teams, this changes the value of fandom. A large, active fan base is no longer useful only because it makes a sponsor pitch more attractive. It can also produce direct digital revenue inside the game itself. Sentinels CEO Rob Moore said in 2024 that Riot revenue sharing, along with improved merchandise sales, was expected to play a major role in the organization’s path toward profitability.
There is still a dependency problem. Publisher revenue belongs to an ecosystem that the publisher controls, and participation rules, partner status, item economics, league structure, or the popularity of the game can change. A team that replaces sponsor dependency with publisher dependency has improved its revenue mix, but it has not fully solved the sustainability problem.
The strongest version of the model therefore treats publisher payments as one layer rather than the whole structure. Competitive success creates visibility, digital items convert some of that attention into game-linked spending, and the organization then tries to carry those fans into channels it controls more directly.
Esports Organizations Are Turning Their Internal Skills Into Services
One of the most interesting changes is the rise of the esports organization as a service company. Teams have spent years learning how to produce video, manage creators, run social campaigns, sell gaming-focused advertising, stage events, design merchandise, and communicate with younger online audiences. Those capabilities can be sold to outside clients even when the client has no interest in sponsoring a roster.
Team Liquid is a strong example. The organization operates Liquid Media while Liquipedia has grown into one of competitive gaming’s best-known information platforms, alongside a global esports operation that spans numerous games and facilities. Team Liquid Co-CEO Steve Arhancet said in 2026 that the company generated more than $60 million in revenue during 2025 and had been profitable for three consecutive years, with business units outside direct team participation helping support the broader company.
G2 is following a similar pattern. CEO Alban Dechelotte said in 2026 that G2 was operating at roughly $35 million in annual revenue, with about 45 percent coming from sponsorships, 45 percent from competitive-related income such as publisher sharing, digital items and prize money, and about 10 percent from other businesses. Those additional operations include consumer products, memberships, and business-to-business marketing and publishing work.
The important shift is that an esports organization can now sell expertise as well as attention. A sponsor deal asks a brand to pay for access to the team’s audience. An agency or production contract asks a client to pay the organization because it knows how gaming audiences behave and how to build campaigns for them. That is a more transferable asset than the popularity of any single roster.
Direct Fan Revenue Is Moving Beyond the Jersey Drop
Merchandise remains visible because fans like physical identity. Jerseys, hoodies, collaborations, peripherals, limited products, and collectibles can all generate revenue, but merchandise has inventory costs, fulfillment expenses, forecasting risk, and uneven demand. The newer direct-to-fan strategy tries to build a recurring relationship rather than depending on occasional product launches.
Fnatic offers a clear example with Fnatic Plus, a paid subscription that currently includes access to member-only events, content, product benefits, prize draws, and other fan perks. G2 has also directed investment toward its app and broader direct-to-fan offerings, while other major organizations have developed their own community platforms, loyalty programs, or premium access systems.
This model has a second value beyond subscription income. A team that owns the relationship with its fans gets better information about what those fans watch, buy, attend, and respond to. That makes merchandise planning, sponsor activation, ticketed events, digital sales, and content programming more informed.
There is a limit here too. Competitive gaming audiences have spent decades receiving streams, highlights, community discussion, and tournament coverage for free. Any paid membership has to offer real access or benefits, otherwise it becomes another monthly charge competing with game subscriptions, streaming services, battle passes, and hardware spending.
Some Companies Are Diversifying Far Beyond Team Operations
NIP Group demonstrates how far the hybrid model can go. In its 2025 annual filing, the publicly traded company reported that esports team operations accounted for only 9.3 percent of net revenue, while talent management represented 49.6 percent and event production 25.2 percent. The company also added a Bitcoin mining business in 2025, which accounted for 15.9 percent of net revenue that year.
That is an unusually broad mix, and it should not be treated as a template every esports organization can copy. What it does show is that a competitive brand can sit inside a much larger entertainment and services company rather than functioning as the entire company. NIP Group’s filings also illustrate how weaker esports sponsorship revenue can exist alongside growth in other operating segments such as talent management and event production.
The distinction matters because esports competition is expensive and volatile. Player salaries, coaching staffs, travel, league costs, facilities, content teams, and support staff create a high fixed-cost base, while tournament winnings are inconsistent by definition. A business that earns money from multiple activities can absorb a poor competitive season more easily than one whose finances depend on winning or renewing a small number of sponsor contracts.
Event Funding and Ecosystem Programs Are Becoming Another Revenue Layer
External funding programs are also changing team economics. The Esports World Cup Foundation’s 2026 Club Partner Program committed $20 million across 40 organizations, with participating clubs receiving six-figure base funding and access to additional payments tied to campaigns, activities, and performance metrics. The program says clubs can receive up to $1 million while working on audience growth, content, fan engagement, and related activities.
For participating organizations, programs like this can help fund expansion into additional games, regions, and content operations. They also add another source of income that is neither a conventional sponsor deal nor tournament prize money. The tradeoff is familiar: money tied to a specific event system or external program can disappear if the rules, funding priorities, or strategic goals of that program change.
This is one reason hybrid monetization works best when the pieces reinforce one another. Tournament participation generates moments worth watching. Creators and social teams turn those moments into ongoing audience attention. Digital items and memberships convert some fans into direct customers. Agencies and production teams sell the organization’s operating knowledge to other companies. Events, merchandise, and licensing then give the brand additional ways to earn from the same community.
The New Model Changes Competitive Decisions
The financial structure behind a game now matters more when organizations decide where to field rosters. A title with a large audience but weak team economics can be less attractive than a smaller ecosystem with dependable stipends, digital item sharing, strong tournament incentives, or lower operating costs. That does not mean competition becomes secondary, but competitive ambition is increasingly filtered through the economics of each publisher system.
This can affect roster strategy as well. Organizations have more reason to value players who can compete at a high level while also connecting with fans, appearing in content, or helping sell digital team items. The danger is turning professional players into full-time marketing assets when their main job is still to compete, so healthier organizations will need to separate commercial participation from competitive preparation rather than assume every player should become a creator.
Smaller organizations face the hardest version of this shift. The biggest brands can spread staff, technology, content production, sponsorship sales, merchandise operations, and agency work across several teams and regions. Smaller clubs may have stronger local identity but fewer resources to build all of those businesses at once. Hybrid monetization does not remove the advantage of scale, and in some cases it may increase it.
Cost Discipline Is Part of the Business Model Again
Revenue diversification gets most of the attention, but sustainability also depends on spending. The boom years encouraged organizations to treat expansion as proof of momentum, which meant more games, larger headquarters, bigger content teams, and expensive player contracts. The reset has made organizations more willing to exit titles, reduce staffing, renegotiate operations, or concentrate resources around games where the business terms make sense.
Even diversified organizations are not immune. Team Liquid has remained commercially broad and its leadership has reported strong revenue and profitability, yet the company has still gone through workforce reductions, including another reported restructuring in August 2026. That is a reminder that higher revenue does not automatically make every department or roster economically sustainable.
The healthier version of modern esports is therefore less dependent on perpetual expansion. A team can still chase championships, sign star players, and enter new games, but each move has to connect to a commercial system that can survive outside an investment boom. Prestige is valuable, but prestige that continually requires outside capital is fragile.
Competition Is Becoming the Engine Rather Than the Entire Product
The most durable organizations are beginning to resemble gaming-centered media and entertainment companies with professional teams at their core. The competition creates identity, rivalries, history, heroes, and the emotional reason fans care. The business surrounding that competition then has to turn attention into several different forms of revenue without draining the authenticity that made the audience valuable in the first place.
That balance will decide which organizations still matter years from now. Fans can tell when a team has become a merchandise label with a roster attached, just as they can tell when an organization has no commercial plan beyond chasing trophies and hoping another investor covers the bill. The sustainable middle ground is harder: win enough to stay meaningful, build enough community to keep fans attached between matches, and create enough independent business activity that one bad sponsor cycle or one publisher decision does not put the entire organization at risk.