Organizations fail to inform their players of third-party offers – Is this wrong?

ESPN Brazil recently made big revelations that multiple LoL clubs have kept their players in the dark by failing to inform them of offers that had been sent over by other organizations.

The issue spurred heated discussions as on one side many argued that players have the right to be in the know, whilst others stated that teams have no legal obligations to be disclosing these offers with their players.

So who’s in the wrong?

© LoL Esports

Currently, Riot Game’s LoL Esports regulation states that those affiliated with teams may not solicit, lure or discuss employment opportunities directly with a signed player or coach on another team. Teams wishing to sign a player or coach must instead directly discuss opportunities with the other team’s management holding the contract.

Failing to do so would result in penalties, likely fines, benching, or disqualification of set player or team.

Players should be informed:

Many argue that players should be informed of other offers simply because it’s the “right” thing to do. This would allow them greater knowledge of future prospects.

Furthermore, many contracts have a “buy-out” clause, whereby the player or the other team could opt to pay a sum of money to break a player’s contract. In this case, given that the player has an option to leave anyway, they should be informed if they receive a better offer / opportunity.

As players cannot directly discuss with other teams, they may not know that they are being undervalued.

Knowing such offers exists allows them to better negotiate in the future without being taken advantage of.

4.5

Betway Bonus

Get up to £/$30 in Free Bets now

Betway

T&C Apply, 18 +

Players should not be informed:

Informing players they have received another offer may prove detrimental to an organization / team.

Most obviously, the player could choose to leave the team leading to a loss of talent, even if a buyout clause exists. This will result in reduced team performance.

In the case there is no buyout clause, and the team wishes to keep the player, it may result in the player choosing to jepodize the team by throwing matches and deliberately under performing as a protest. By letting players know they have other offers, it may also distract them from current play, as their focus may be elsewhere.

Overall, keeping such offers from players will allow a more stable competitive environment.

Comments are closed.