Fnatic attaches sponsor Rivalry to its CSGO team’s name

Many viewers were surprised to see Fnatic competing under the name Fnatic Rivalry during recent tournaments, sparking discussions across the esports community. This naming convention hadn’t been prominent for several years, making its reappearance particularly noteworthy for industry observers.

During Counter-Strike’s early growth phases, securing consistent sponsorship represented a significant challenge for emerging organizations. Teams needed to develop innovative approaches to generate revenue streams beyond tournament winnings alone. For longtime CS:GO enthusiasts who followed the scene during its 2014 expansion period, witnessing Fnatic Rivalry evoked memories of earlier marketing strategies.

Why is Fnatic now known as “Fnatic Rivalry?”

Rivalry operates as a comprehensive esports betting platform enabling wagers across numerous competitive gaming titles. Similar gambling services employ comparable operational frameworks throughout the industry.

Unibet, for instance, recently finalized an agreement with Astralis to feature their branding during ESL’s Pro League broadcasts reaching substantial viewer audiences. Following this pattern, Fnatic selected Rivalry as their designated sponsorship partner for prominent tournament appearances.

What explains this sudden resurgence of corporate naming conventions? The current esports landscape increasingly resembles the commercial environment of 2015, when such practices were commonplace. The historical billboard from the Ninjas in Pyjamas versus Fnatic matchup in 2014 illustrates how deeply embedded these arrangements once were.

Before streaming platforms integrated sophisticated advertising systems, in-game identification provided cost-effective sponsorship visibility. This approach delivered consistent brand exposure without requiring substantial financial investment from participating organizations.

As CS:GO’s competitive ecosystem matured, marketing professionals recognized conventional promotional channels often failed to resonate with esports audiences. Jersey logos offered limited value when broadcast cameras focused primarily on in-game action rather than player close-ups.

Although early Counter-Strike competitions included LAN events, their relative scarcity necessitated alternative marketing approaches through live game streams. Broadcast visibility became the primary vehicle for reaching engaged viewing audiences consistently.

These practices gained such widespread acceptance that even Valve, the game’s developer, initially permitted such naming conventions. The Cloud9 sticker from 2015’s Cologne Major, displaying “C9 G2A” identification, perfectly captures this historical period’s sponsorship landscape.

Several significant incidents contributed to diminished prominence of integrated sponsor naming. Most notably, four competitors from North American squad iBUYPOWER received permanent bans for deliberately losing a match in exchange for valuable in-game cosmetic items.

The contested match involved third-party betting, skin acquisition, and player distribution before investigative journalist Richard Lewis published incriminating text message evidence.

Approximately twelve months later, content creators Trevor “Tmartn” Martin and Tom “Syndicate” Cassel faced allegations of operating CS:GO case opening websites while promoting them without proper disclosure. Their activities violated multiple regulatory statutes, ultimately compelling Valve to issue formal legal cessation demands.

These and comparable controversies reduced organizational enthusiasm for prominently featuring gambling-related sponsors during official competitions. Many teams opted for more discreet partnership arrangements following these industry-shaking events.

Why are sponsors back in CSGO team names?

While definitive explanations remain elusive, several educated hypotheses provide compelling insights. The appearance of both Fnatic Rivalry and Astralis Unibet within ESL tournaments represents particularly intriguing development.

ESL and its affiliated organization ESEA had prohibited such naming conventions following the iBUYPOWER controversy, making their reappearance especially noteworthy for close industry observers.

The transformation likely relates to structural ownership changes within ESL Pro League operations. Earlier this year, thirteen participating organizations signed agreements providing partial ownership stakes and revenue distribution within CS:GO’s most established competitive circuit.

Additionally, teams will obtain earnings from ESL-organized events. However, with IEM Katowice proceeding without live spectators and EPL reverting to online competition formats, ESL and partner organizations appear to have modified previous restrictions.

This development doesn’t necessarily indicate problematic industry practices. However, it highlights esports’ continuing dependence on fan engagement and viewership metrics for financial sustainability.

With Counter-Strike competitions and most other esports available freely through Twitch and YouTube platforms, enthusiasts primarily spend money attending live tournament experiences. Since pandemic conditions eliminated this revenue stream, organizations have revived proven advertising approaches from the 2015 era.

For teams seeking stable revenue beyond tournament winnings, exploring our Complete Guide provides valuable insights into sustainable monetization strategies. Similarly, understanding weapon systems through our Weapons Unlock guide helps contextualize how in-game elements influence commercial opportunities.

The strategic selection of appropriate class compositions, detailed in our Class Guide demonstrates how strategic positioning affects brand visibility during competitions.

No reproduction without permission：Game Guides Online » Fnatic attaches sponsor Rivalry to its CSGO team’s name Exploring the return of sponsored team names in CS:GO esports and what it means for the industry's future