Ethics CasesSport

Cases · LCS / NACL (Riot Games) · 2023–2026

Players Are the LCS: League of Legends' 2023 Walkout

In May 2023, Riot Games stopped requiring franchised teams in its North American League of Legends league (the LCS) to field second-tier teams in the North American Challengers League (NACL). Seven of the ten teams dropped their academy squads, and the players' association said about 70 jobs were at risk. Players voted overwhelmingly to walk out. Riot delayed the summer season and warned it was prepared to cancel it, which would also remove North America from the world championship. A deal one week later restored play with partial concessions. The case asks how an esport's financial pain should be shared.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. Riot ends the requirement for LCS teams to field NACL teams; seven of ten drop them.
  2. LCS players vote overwhelmingly to walk out.
  3. The LCSPA announces the walkout and five demands.
  4. Riot rejects most demands, delays the summer split by two weeks and warns it may cancel the season.
  5. Riot, the LCSPA and teams reach an agreement.
  6. The LCS Summer Split begins.
  7. Riot merges the Americas leagues into the LTA and launches a Global Revenue Pool.
  8. Riot announces the LCS will return as an independent league in 2026.

The ethical issues

  • Who bears the cost of an industry downturn.
  • Collective action without a formal union contract.
  • Using threats of cancellation in a labor dispute.
  • Strikebreaking by replacement players.
  • The league's duty to its talent pipeline.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
LCS playersJobs, a voice and protection for teammates.
NACL players and staffTheir jobs and a path to the pros.
Riot GamesSustainable league economics.
LCS team ownersCutting losses.
FansWatching competition.
Amateur and collegiate playersWhether to fill the strikers' places.

The case

“Players are the LCS. Without players, there is no league, and there is no esport.”[2] The LCS Players Association (LCSPA) issued that statement in May 2023, after North American League of Legends professionals voted to walk out. They were protesting a decision by Riot Games, which owns the game and the league, to stop requiring franchised teams to run second-tier squads. Riot responded by delaying the season and warning it might cancel it.[2][4] The case asks who should bear the financial pain when an esport contracts, and what fair bargaining looks like in a league owned by the game’s publisher.

Background

Before the change, Riot gave franchised LCS teams a stipend of about $2 million. Part of it was meant to fund a team in the North American Challengers League (NACL), the developmental tier.[5] In May 2023, Riot changed the NACL requirement so teams could opt out. Seven of the ten LCS organizations dropped their academy teams to cut costs. One of them, Cloud9, was the reigning NACL spring champion.[4][5] The LCSPA said an estimated 70 people, including players and coaches, would lose their jobs. Riot said the change was needed to keep the North American leagues “sustainable [and] economically viable.”[2]

What happened

On 28 May, LCS players voted “overwhelmingly” to walk out at the start of the summer split.[3][5] The LCSPA’s demands included promotion and relegation between the NACL and the LCS, guaranteed one-year contracts for players on split-winning teams, roster-continuity priority for released NACL players, and a $300,000 salary pool per NACL team per year.[3][4] Kotaku reported that teams were looking “to field scab players.”[2]

On 30 May, Riot’s global head of League of Legends esports, Naz Aletaha, rejected most of the demands. On the salary pool, the statement said: “That simply isn’t sustainable – and to be brutally honest, it shouldn’t be necessary.” Riot offered a one-time $300,000 payment to the NACL’s tournament operator instead.[2][4] It delayed the season two weeks and wrote: “Delaying beyond the two-week window would make it nearly impossible to run a legitimate competition, and in that case, we would be prepared to cancel the entire LCS summer season.” It added that cancellation “will also eliminate LCS teams qualifying for 2023 Worlds.”[2][4]

On 8 June, the parties agreed to resume play on 14 June.[5][6] The LCSPA listed the terms. The $300,000 would be split across the 10 NACL teams, and NACL teams would share 50% of future NACL sponsorship revenue. A team participation agreement with minimum standards would come in 2024. Players earning up to 1.5 times the league minimum would get at least 30 days’ severance if dismissed without cause, and visa players would get 15 days’ notice. Players and teams would have equal seats on a practice-schedule committee. Teams would ensure healthcare for foreign players from their first day in the US. Riot and the LCSPA would sign a memorandum on consultation.[3]

The rules and governance

Riot owns both the game and the league, and it sets the participation rules. The LCSPA had no collective bargaining agreement that could block the NACL change. Its leverage came from players refusing to play.[3][4] The LCSPA admitted that “the agreements fall short of our initially stated goals” and said they “do not return the NACL fully, nor do they provide restoration for the players who lost jobs suddenly and incurred financial hardship, lost visas, or broken leases.”[3] It called the vote, with more than 90% of LCS players in favor, “historic.” It also praised the solidarity of NACL, collegiate and amateur players who refused to replace the strikers.[3]

Aftermath

Riot then revised its global business model. Sports Business Journal reported that teams’ lump-sum payments, about $2 million in the past, would fall to perhaps 30–40% of that. The rest would be earned through digital sales and engagement incentives. Team sources said players and staff would “feel the brunt.”[7] In 2025, Riot merged the Americas leagues into the League of the Americas (LTA) and launched a Global Revenue Pool. After one season, it announced that the LCS and CBLOL would return as independent leagues in 2026, citing fans’ attachment to their regional leagues.[1][8] Riot said the 2026 LCS will keep a guest slot for a team from the NACL or another second-tier league.[1]

The core dilemma

When a publisher-owned league loses money, can it cut its developmental tier on its own? And was the players’ walkout a legitimate way to force shared decision-making?

Competing values

Economic sustainability stands against job security. The owner’s authority stands against the workers’ voice. Solidarity stands against individual careers.

Strongest arguments

For Riot’s position: The losses were real, and other second-tier leagues survive without subsidies. A season without competition hurts everyone, and Riot made partial concessions.[2][7]

For the players: They were excluded from the decision, the cuts fell on the lowest-paid players, and the threat of cancellation was coercive. Collective action won protections that individuals could not.[2][3]

Applying the frameworks

Justice

Distributive justice asks why the cuts fell on the developmental tier rather than being shared across owners, the publisher and top players.[3][7]

Kantian

A Kantian view asks whether lower-tier players were treated as mere costs, and whether they were consulted with respect.[2][3]

Utilitarian

A consequentialist weighs saving the league against losing jobs and weakening the talent pipeline.[1][7]

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. What are the facts? The NACL change, the walkout, the threat and the deal.[2][3][4]
  2. Who are the stakeholders? LCS and NACL players, Riot, team owners, fans and amateurs.
  3. What are the options? Keep the mandate; phase it out with consultation; or cut it as Riot did.
  4. Which values are in conflict? Sustainability against security; authority against voice.
  5. What do the frameworks suggest? Kantian and justice views favor consultation; utilitarians weigh the long-term health of the league.
  6. What would you decide and why? Decide as Riot’s head of esports.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled: The terms of the deal and the dates.[3][5]

Contested: Whether Riot’s threat was fair, and whether the cuts were necessary.[2][7]

Why this case matters

Compare with Riot’s gender discrimination settlement, Activision Blizzard and its esports leagues and the CS:GO coach spectator bug.

Key terms

Stakeholders
Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.
Agency
An athlete’s ability to make decisions and act independently about their body, career and voice.
Distributive justice
Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.
Principal–agent problem
When those acting on others’ behalf (agents such as executives, officials or agents) have interests that diverge from the people they serve.
Institutional accountability
Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.
Commercialization
The process of turning sport into a product and a business enterprise, with profit pressures that can compete with principle.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Was the walkout justified?
  2. Was Riot's threat to cancel the season fair bargaining?
  3. Should top-tier players strike for lower-tier players?
  4. Should replacement players have crossed the line?
  5. What do publishers owe the esport ecosystems they create?

Sources

  1. LCS and CBLOL return — LoL Esports (Riot Games)
  2. Riot Threatens To Cancel Entire Esports Season If Striking League Of Legends Players Can't Reach Deal — Kotaku
  3. League Strike Called Off After Riot, Player's Union Reach Agreement — Kotaku
  4. Riot Games postpones LCS following player walkout vote — Esports Insider
  5. Riot Games, LCS Players Association Come to Agreement on NACL — The Esports Advocate
  6. League of Legends esports players who walked out reach agreement with Riot Games — The Verge
  7. Less guaranteed money could hurt smaller teams in League of Legends esports — Sports Business Journal
  8. Riot bids farewell to the LTA as LCS and CBLOL return in 2026 — Esports Insider