Franchising vs Open Circuits in Esports: The Real Trade-Offs

The most consequential decision an esport makes has nothing to do with map design or the patch notes. It’s about who gets to compete at the top, and by what right. Two philosophies split the field. Under franchising, a fixed set of established organizations own permanent slots in the premier league. Under an open system with promotion and relegation, teams earn their place through results and can be dropped if they fall short. Sounds like plumbing. In practice it decides the entire personality of a scene — where the money goes, and which stories fans even get to tell.

Neither model is right or wrong. Each buys something real at a real price, and the major esports have planted their flags in different places on purpose. Understanding the trade is one of the sharpest lenses you can bring to how competitive gaming is organized.

The case for franchising

Around 2018, top-level League of Legends in the West made its defining move. The LCS in North America and the LEC in Europe dropped promotion and relegation and became franchised, partnership-based leagues. The pitch was stability. When a team can be relegated out of the top division after one bad split, every dollar it spends carries existential risk — sign expensive players, build a facility, grow a brand, and a single disastrous season can wipe the ground out from under all of it.

Franchising deletes that cliff. With a permanent slot locked in, an organization can plan in years instead of splits: invest in development, build a real business operation, negotiate sponsorships from a position of confidence. The same logic drives the partnered model Riot runs in the VALORANT Champions Tour, where a set of partner teams anchor each regional league. The intended payoff is a healthier business, steadier rosters, stronger regional identity. For anyone tracking the business of esports, franchising is at bottom an attempt to make the sport financially survivable for the people playing it.

The case for open circuits

The counterargument is every bit as strong, and it lives on competitive integrity. Open circuits with promotion and relegation are meritocratic by construction: good enough, and you rise from the lower tiers into the top flight; bad enough up there, and you go back down. That forges a cleaner link between performance and opportunity, and it keeps the door propped open for challengers who were never part of the original franchised club.

It also loads the stakes into ordinary matches. In an open system a mid-table game in the back half of a season can carry enormous weight, because relegation is on the line — the kind of desperate, white-knuckle drama a franchised league can go a whole split without. The pre-franchising LCS had exactly this: relegation tournaments where a top-flight spot was genuinely at risk, and losing it hurt. Counter-Strike is the clearest modern example of the open philosophy — its scene stays meritocratic across the third-party circuits, where teams earn their standing on results instead of holding a guaranteed chair. Fans who prize that earn-your-place ethos often call it the truest version of what competitive gaming is supposed to be.

What each model gives up

The honest framing is a trade, not a trophy. Franchising buys stability and sells meritocracy. A struggling franchised team keeps its top-tier slot regardless of how it plays, which can breed complacency and lock out deserving up-and-comers, and critics argue it insulates dead weight while draining the stakes from regular-season games. Nobody’s fighting for their life when nobody can be relegated.

Open circuits buy meritocracy and sell stability. The constant threat of the drop makes long-term investment riskier, encourages short-term roster churn, and makes durable businesses harder to build. A talented team can be undone by one bad stretch, and the financial uncertainty scares off exactly the kind of backing a growing scene needs. There is no free lunch on this menu — every design choice trades one virtue for its opposite, which is precisely why serious industry observers refuse to crown a universal winner.

The bet each game is making

Franchising versus open is really an argument about what a healthy esport should protect — the financial security that lets organizations survive, or the competitive openness that lets the best rise. Different games placed different bets. League of Legends and VALORANT chose stability through franchising and partnership; Counter-Strike kept an open, merit-based ecosystem. Watching those bets pay off, or not, over years is one of the most instructive live experiments in the space, and the results carry real lessons for anyone building or funding a competitive scene. For more analysis of how tournaments and leagues are structured, explore our broader esports coverage, or learn our editorial approach on the about page.

Sources

• LoL Esports
• VALORANT Esports
• Liquipedia
• Dot Esports

Related from Esports