Publishers are right to be congratulated. Without the creative, technological, and financial investment of the companies that develop and maintain the titles, there would be no basis for competitive practice to flourish. Their proprietary circuits elevate production standards, strengthen the game's brand, drive innovation in mechanics and anti-cheat, and function as a talent funnel that the community and the institutional scope benefit from. Recognizing this merit is essential for any honest discussion about esports.
- What is at stake when someone says that "esports have owners"? The phrase is seductive: since the game belongs to a publisher, then the esport would have an owner. This confuses two distinct things:
- Intellectual property of the game (software, brands, audiovisual), which belongs to the holder.
- Sports practice (competitive rules, arbitration, calendars, sports justice), which is a social and institutional arrangement — just like football, basketball, or motorsport.
This reality, however, has nothing to do with the events and competitions held in the Institutional Sports Scope. They are distinct spheres that can and should coexist. In fact, one model enhances the other: without the creative and technological work of publishers/developers, there would be no basis for institutionalized electronic sports; and, on the other hand, the Institutional Sports Scope extends the lifecycle of franchises, expands markets, and strengthens competitive communities around each game, on each server, and each commercialized franchise.
This article continues the reflections presented in "Esports in Brazil – Legislation, Legitimation, High Performance, and Inclusion," deepening the debate on intellectual property, institutionalization, and healthy coexistence between the market and the sports system.
Two Different Concepts: Intellectual Property and Institutional Sports Practice
It is common to hear, especially among those who resist the institutionalization of Electronic Sports, that "esports have owners” an argument based on the fact that the practice takes place within electronic games that belong to publishers and developers, who own servers, brands, and intellectual property rights.
This view, however, mixes two distinct concepts: the intellectual property of the software and the sports practice organized in the Institutional Sports Scope. They are different spheres, governed by their own legal and institutional frameworks, such as Intellectual Property Laws (Law No. 9,610/1998 in Brazil and international treaties like the Berne Convention), the General Sports Law (Law No. 14,597/2023, especially articles 18 and 18-A), the Civil Code, the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT), and other specific labor laws that recognize and protect the athlete as a professional of a special nature, with their own rights and guarantees, recognizing their activity as dignified and protected work.
The publisher holds intellectual property rights over the software, brands, and services (LDA 9.610/1998; Software Law 9.609/1998). Electronic sports practice is recognized in the legal system as a sport (LGE 14.597/2023) and is organized by competitive rules, ranking, arbitration, and calendar — elements that are not the property of the code creator.
Again: the publisher owns the work (code, arts, brands) and controls online services; the sports practice — calendar, competitive rules, arbitration, ranking, integrity, and training — belongs to the sports and social sphere, with legitimacy to organize itself in a federative and confederative manner. These two planes do not exclude each other: they complement each other. The publisher's circuit promotes the official franchise experience; the institutional circuit ensures neutrality, multi-game continuity, athlete protection, and predictability for clubs, schools, and sponsors.
The history of sports has already shown similar examples. Football does not belong to those who make the ball; basketball does not belong to Spalding or Wilson; in motorsport, the FIA does not manufacture cars. In all cases, the equipment is private property, but sports practice is regulated and organized by independent entities that coexist and negotiate with manufacturers and suppliers.
An important conceptual milestone was the change in terminology: from "Electronic Games Competitions" to "Electronic Sports" (esport). This change inserts the modality into the global Institutional Sports Scope, reinforcing its character as a cultural and social manifestation and distancing the notion of monopoly.
What Really Belongs to the Publisher
The publisher or developer owns the intellectual property of the game: source code, characters, soundtrack, design, registered trademarks, servers, and technical infrastructure, as well as commercial rights over the official championships they organize. This heritage is protected by national and international Intellectual Property laws.
What Does Not Belong to the Publisher
Electronic sports, as a cultural and competitive practice in the Institutional Sports Scope, is not the property of a publisher. The organization of rankings, regulations, calendars, sports courts, and disciplinary instances is the responsibility of federations and confederations, which operate supported by Sports Laws, the Civil Code, and specific labor legislation for athletes.
In the Private Scope, publishers, developers, and event organizers have legitimate and clear objectives: to generate return on investment and value for their shareholders. This vision is correct and inherent to business logic — any company with investors and market responsibilities needs to focus on financial results.
Private competitions are naturally geared towards their own franchises, without the need to integrate different games or publishers (no cross-promotion). The goal is to strengthen the brand, increase engagement, and boost sales of that title. When a franchise loses commercial or strategic relevance, it is common for the focus to shift to new projects, with a reduction or cessation of support, updates, and server maintenance.
This model perfectly fulfills its role in the market. The Institutional Sports Scope, on the other hand, has different purposes: to ensure competitive continuity, foster the grassroots, promote inclusion and educational development, support high performance, and integrate into the Olympic movement.
The Difference Between "Electronic Game" and "Esport"
The electronic game is an entertainment product protected by copyright. The esport, on the other hand, is a structured and competitive practice, organized in the Institutional Sports Scope, with its own legislation, regulations, and federative structure, as provided by the General Sports Law in Brazil (Law 14.597/2023), especially in articles 18 and 18-A.
This distinction is crucial: by being classified as a sport, the modality acquires a distinct legal nature, becoming part of sports and social heritage. Entities like CBDEL adapt competitive formats to the Institutional Sports Scope, fully respecting the intellectual property of the game.
How the Roles Complement Each Other (Objective)
- Publisher (proprietary circuit): continuous innovation, official franchise narrative, global visibility, cutting-edge anti-cheat, broadcast qualification.
- Institutional scope (federative/confederative): neutral rules, cross-game ranking, multi-game calendar, grassroots development, health and well-being, independent integrity and conflict resolution mechanisms.
Still thinking about the phrase: "I can turn off the servers and everything will disappear, therefore I am the owner of esports."
Different Legal Natures: "Game" (protected work) ≠ "Sport" (institutionalized practice). Controlling the server means controlling an access medium, not the sporting nature of the activity.
Technical Control ≠ Sports Monopoly: turning off the official online affects that service; it does not erase the possibility of competition in stable versions, LAN, local mode, split-screen, or licensed/third-party servers when provided.
Sports Perpetuity: sports work with "rule versions" per season. If the publisher does not update, the community can freeze a version (patch X.Y) and compete in it — a common practice in leagues that fix the meta of each season.
Coexistence of Circuits: nothing prevents the proprietary circuit (publisher-run) and the institutional circuit (federative/confederative). The former promotes its brand/product; the latter ensures standardization of arbitration, integrity, athlete health, multi-game calendar, and training — layers that go beyond the interest of a single holder.
Public-Sports Function: grassroots policies, inclusion, education, abuse prevention, combating match-fixing and digital doping are typical attributions of the federative/confederative scope and do not depend on new patches.
Brands and Nomenclature: the use of game brands follows IP rules (events cannot suggest undue sponsorship), but the nominative description of the modality ("[Title] Tournament – Patch X.Y") is possible with clear limits and coexistence agreements.
Systemic Risk of the "Switch": the "right to turn off" creates supplier dependency (vendor lock-in) and insecurity for athletes, clubs, and sponsors. The institutional model reduces this risk by organizing seasons, contracts, and insurance in a multi-game horizon.
Factual Precedent of the Ecosystem: communities and leagues often maintain competitiveness even without active support (legacy versions) — the practice does not disappear when the update ceases; it just stabilizes.
Licenses as Bridges, Not Shackles: it is perfectly possible for the publisher to license institutional competitive use without exclusivity, with clear limits (broadcast rights, prizes, logos) and mutual benefits (anti-fraud data, visibility, talent funnel).
Responsible Sunset: if the official online service ends, the publisher can: (a) release/authorize LAN mode for institutional competition; (b) issue audited community server licenses; (c) grant permissions to use the final version for sports purposes. The sport continues; only the technical arrangement changes.
Proportionality and Cultural Interest: the fact that an asset is private does not authorize "appropriating" the sports social sphere generated around it. The publisher preserves their rights to exploit the work; the sports system preserves the rights and duties of the practice.
The Game Owner is Not the Sport Owner. The publisher can create, update, monetize, and even discontinue online services for their title — and this power is legitimate in the field of intellectual property (IP) and service provision. But electronic sports, as a practice recognized and organized by competitive rules, independent arbitration, calendar, and ranking, belong to the sports and social sphere, not to the proprietary logic of a single economic agent. Turning off servers limits an official access medium; it does not extinguish the already consolidated competitive modality, which can operate in stable versions and under federative/confederative governance. The mature solution is regulated coexistence: clear licenses, brand limits, shared integrity mechanisms, and sunset clauses that ensure competitive continuity without infringing copyright. Thus, the legitimate domain of the publisher over the work is preserved, and the freedom of the sport is consolidated — multi-game, multi-entity, and oriented to the public interest of the ecosystem.
Responding to Critics Opposed to Confederations
Intellectual Property Rights: The publisher owns the game, but not electronic sports in the Institutional Sports Scope. Institutional recognition does not remove copyright or reduce creative autonomy, as it fully respects Intellectual Property Law. The Confederation operates only in the Institutional Sports Scope, without interference in the private sphere. Respect for the publisher is total: their work is irreplaceable, and without it, there would be no basis for institutionalized practice.
Business Model: The Confederation does not replace the publisher's commercial model; it complements it, bringing promotion, sponsorship, and international recognition. Contrary to what they claim, for clubs, teams, and athletes, the existence of an Institutional Sports Scope expands revenue and visibility opportunities. Even if private competitions cease, the institutional calendar ensures career continuity and earnings for athletes and teams, backed by Labor and Civil Laws.
Application of Laws: Some opponents argue that institutionalization would harm the relationship between companies and athletes by requiring labor ties, but they contradictorily resort to legislation when it suits them. Institutionalization ensures coherence, correctly and universally applying both the CLT and specific laws that protect athletes, avoiding selective use.
Market Interference: The regulation of the Institutional Sports Scope does not affect the publisher's autonomy in their private events. It only organizes the practice in the federative and Olympic context, creating universal rules and ensuring competitive integrity. A common mistake is to assume that, because private competitions use game rules, every championship must be under the same command. But in the institutional, the game is a platform; the tournament is an autonomous entity within a recognized sports system (with federations, confederations, and Olympic committees).
Integrity and Development: In the Private Scope, it is not the publisher's obligation to develop educational bases, social programs, or inclusion policies — and this is correct from a business perspective. However, this lack of obligation reinforces the need for the Institutional Sports Scope, which exists precisely to take care of these aspects, supported by Sports Laws and constitutional principles of the right to sport. Positive examples show that it is possible to harmonize these spheres: in China, Tencent and NetEase not only promote their own tournaments but also support and assist institutional competitions; in Russia and South Korea, there are models where government, federations, and publishers actively cooperate.
The Publisher Could Simply Turn Off the Game Servers or Cease Updates, Therefore They Own Esports
When the publisher claims that they can end updates or the server and, therefore, would be the "owner of the sport," what is demonstrated is technical control over a service, not a monopoly over the sports practice that emerged from this work. The competition can operate in stable versions (frozen patch), in LAN, or under specific licenses; and federations/confederations remain responsible for integrity, calendar, health, and education — layers that do not depend on new patches. The mature path is to agree on regulated coexistence, preserving the publisher's IP and the freedom of the sport.
Differences Between Esport and Traditional Sport: They do not need to be identical to share principles: integrity, transparency, athlete protection, and structured calendar. In traditional sports, the equipment is private (ball, racket, car, board), but the sport is governed by an independent entity — the same applies to electronic sports.
Conclusion
Publishers and developers own the game, but not electronic sports in the Institutional Sports Scope. The use of the term Electronic Sports is, in itself, an affirmation of autonomy and integration into the global sports ecosystem.
In short, both sides must coexist. The publisher deserves recognition for what they created and sustain; the federative/confederative system deserves autonomy to organize sports practice in a neutral and continuous manner. With clear licenses, sunset clauses, and integrity coordination, the legitimate domain of the publisher over the work is preserved, and the freedom of the sport is consolidated — strengthening the entire chain: athletes, clubs, schools, sponsors, and communities.
As already highlighted in "Esports in Brazil – Legislation, Legitimation, High Performance, and Inclusion," the ideal path is strategic cooperation, which respects intellectual property, strengthens the independence and legitimacy of the practice, and ensures its sustainability.
In this model, everyone wins: publishers expand markets and revenues; athletes and clubs achieve stability and opportunities; and electronic sports are consolidated as a global, democratic phenomenon aligned with the universal principles of sport.
WESCO, along with PAMESCO, ACDS, and AESF (including participation in the Asian Games), as well as IESF on the international stage, operates in this alignment, building standards, promoting institutional recognition, and uniting the public and private sectors for the sustainable growth of the modality.
So, Do Esports Have Owners or Not? Why the Answer Matters — and How to Federate Without Infringing Intellectual Property
Given the logical content of the text above, let's go to the direct and short points.
- What is at stake when someone says that "esports have owners"? The phrase is seductive: since the game belongs to a publisher, then the esport would have an owner. This confuses two distinct things:
- Intellectual property of the game (software, brands, audiovisual), which belongs to the holder.
- Sports practice (competitive rules, arbitration, calendars, sports justice), which is a social and institutional arrangement — just like football, basketball, or motorsport.
Key point: no one claims the game's IP. What is organized is the sports practice that happens with the game.
- The comparison with other sports
- Football: the ball and the boot have a brand and owner; football does not.
- Motorsport: teams use proprietary cars; the sport is governed by independent entities (FIA).
- Martial arts: private leagues (e.g., commercial promoters) and institutional federations (rules, arbitration, rankings) coexist.
Esports follow a similar logic: the game is the publisher's property; the competition can have multiple arrangements — private, official brand, and institutional — as long as it respects the IP and the holder's guidelines.
- Where the law enters this debate (without legalese)
- Copyright/Software: the program and brands are protected — using the game's name, logos, and assets requires a license. But sports rules, calendars, and discipline are not subject to copyright; they are part of the social organization of the sport.
- General Sports Law (Brazil): recognizes integrity, levels of practice (educational, participation, performance), and sports justice. This provides a basis for an institutional sports scope that coexists with private and official brand events.
- LGPD and ECA: data protection and safeguards for minors; here the institutional adds public value (procedures and standards).
- "Private vs. Institutional" is a false dilemma: it is possible to add
Private and official brand events of publishers are free and healthy. This is virtuous from a product and official narrative perspective.
The institutional does not replace or restrict — it cooperates, filling public interest gaps:
- Integrity (anti-cheat, match-fixing prevention, sports justice);
- Grassroots development (school→university→high performance route);
- Protection of minors and data standards;
- Neutral arbitration and due process.
When systems support each other, everyone wins: publishers extend the competitive lifecycle of the game, private organizers have clear standards, athletes receive legal security, and sponsors see governance.
- The rhetoric of "against" — and why it doesn't add up
- Thesis 1 — "It has an owner; therefore, it cannot be a sport." Confuses the game's IP with sports practice. Sports regulation does not use assets beyond what is strictly necessary (brand license when applicable) and does not appropriate the software.
- Thesis 2 — "Federating restricts market freedom." Sports entities do not control the publisher's commercial calendar. What they do is set minimum standards (integrity, arbitration, discipline). Private events remain free.
- Thesis 3 — "Labor will make it unfeasible." The bond exists only when there are requirements (subordination, habituality, etc.). Separating educational from employment and standardizing contracts reduces risk, rather than creating it.
- Thesis 4 — "School is not a place for games." With methodology and safeguards, the gains in engagement and socio-emotional skills are clear. And there are no cash prizes in school.
- Real economy: why cooperation is good for business
- Predictability for sponsors (KPIs, reports, brand safety).
- Reduced regulatory cost (ready-made rules and checklists).
- Audience expansion (interoperable calendars and co-streams).
- Local legacy (training, inclusion, infrastructure).
In the medium term, more trust means more recurring revenue and fewer disputes.
- The middle path: principles for coexistence (and success)
- Respect for the game's IP and brand kits; clear disclaimers of non-affiliation.
- Freedom for private and official brand events.
- Neutrality and transparency in sports and disciplinary rules.
- Data and integrity as common goods (minimum standards, watchlists).
- Protection for minors and LGPD by design.
- Interoperable calendars and educational entry points.
- Non-exclusive Institutional Sports License: nominative use of the title ("[Game] Tournament — Patch X.Y") with brand, branding, and sponsorship guidelines without confusion.
- Competitive sunset clause: if the official online service is discontinued, authorization for LAN mode/licensed servers for strictly sports purposes, with auditing.
- Integrity interoperability: data exchange (bans, match-fixing, cheats) between publisher and sports entities, respecting LGPD.
- Coordinated calendar: windows that avoid harmful overlap and allow athlete trajectories between official and institutional circuits.
- Transmission and archive rights: access to feeds and VODs with clear limits, preserving the publisher's commercial exploitation and the institutional scope's educational and formative function.
- What we recommend for Brazil and other countries in 2025
- Coexistence Charter (publishers, promoters, entities): clear license + sports justice + integrity + protection for minors.
- Playbooks by title (rules and limits by game/IP).
- Post-event Transparency Report (metrics and moderation).
- Responsible Event Seal (ESG + Integrity + ECA) with scoring.
- Short Conclusion
Esports do not have owners as a sports practice. The game does; and it must be respected. It is possible — and desirable — to federate without infringing IP, as long as coexistence is cooperative and transparent. Who wins? The athlete, the public, and the ecosystem as a whole.
Quick FAQ
Do I need a license to use the game's name? Yes — consult the holder's guidelines.
Do private events still exist? Yes — and they are welcome.
And in school? Pedagogical project with safeguards, no cash prizes.
Who judges technical conflicts? Sports justice/independent arbitrators; brand/IP issues remain with the holder.
Appendix — Consolidated Legal Citations (for quick reference)
- General Sports Law — LGE (Law 14.597/2023): arts. 1º, 2º, 3–10, 76–81, 82, 91–95, 99, 156–158, 176, and 177.
- Copyright Law — LDA (Law 9.610/1998): art. 7º, XII; art. 8º, II; and Titles II–III (moral and patrimonial rights).
- Software Law (Law 9.609/1998).
- LGPD (Law 13.709/2018): arts. 7, 11, and 14 (data of minors).
- Law 14.790/2023 (fixed-odds betting).
- Internet Civil Framework — MCI (Law 12.965/2014): art. 19 — with STF/2025 update on liability and self-regulation parameters.
- ECA (Law 8.069/1990) — safeguards and protection for children and adolescents.
DISCLAIMER: This document is for informational purposes and does not replace specific legal consultation.
