LCK Operation Committee investigating Griffin treatment of Kanavi

The esports world awaits a pivotal final report investigating serious allegations that professional League of Legends player Seo “Kanavi” Jin-hyeok was coerced into signing an exploitative contract with Chinese organization JD Gaming. This case has exposed critical vulnerabilities in player protection systems, particularly for minor competitors in high-stakes international transfers.

Official scrutiny began in October when the LCK Operation Committee launched a formal inquiry into claims that Griffin, Kanavi’s former team, used undue pressure to secure a long-term agreement. The investigation centers on whether the young player’s contractual rights were systematically violated during his transfer process.

As a minor under Korean law, Kanavi occupied a legally protected status that should have guaranteed additional safeguards. Despite being represented by a professional agency, he received no legal assistance during these critical negotiations, raising questions about the entire esports representation ecosystem.

Former Griffin head coach Kim “cvMax” Dae-ho provided crucial testimony during a live stream, detailing how management forced Kanavi to accept extended contractual terms with JDG. This arrangement generated approximately $700,000 in transfer fees for Griffin, creating clear financial incentives for the coercive behavior.

cvMax further alleged that Griffin director Cho Gyu-nam threatened Kanavi with player tampering accusations—a serious charge that could result in Riot Games imposing significant competitive penalties. Player tampering violations occur when athletes fail to report unauthorized contact from other teams while under existing contracts.

The situation escalated when Kanavi, enjoying a post-Spring Split vacation in Korea, received a permanent transfer proposal from JDG. When he expressed interest in considering the offer, Cho allegedly weaponized the tampering rules against him, creating a manufactured crisis scenario.

“Cho presented Kanavi with an ultimatum,” cvMax explained. “After accusing him of tampering violations, Cho claimed he would resolve the situation—but only if Kanavi accepted either a three-year or five-year JDG contract, eliminating any shorter-term options.”

Kanavi’s preference for a standard one-year agreement was completely disregarded, leaving him with no viable alternatives. This power imbalance highlights how young players often lack negotiation leverage against established organizations.

LCK Operation Committee Investigates Griffin Claims

By late October, the LCK Operation Committee released preliminary findings that exonerated Kanavi and JDG from tampering violations while condemning Griffin’s contractual practices. The interim report specifically identified the loan arrangement as “unfair” and criticized attempts to impose “unreasonable long-term” transfer conditions.

Throughout these proceedings, Kanavi remained represented by esports agency Kea & Partners, which had participated in drafting the transfer documentation. This involvement suggests the agency recognized the problematic nature of the agreement yet took no corrective action.

Despite clear conflict of interest concerns—Kea & Partners represented both player and organization—the agency provided no legal guidance to protect Kanavi’s interests. This dual representation creates inherent ethical dilemmas that current regulations fail to adequately address.

Kea & Partners defended their inaction by stating: “We reviewed the loan and transfer documents, but cannot intervene proactively without player request.” However, this position ignores the special protections owed to minor athletes and the agency’s fiduciary responsibilities.

Korean Congressman Ha Tae-kyung elevated the case to national attention, emphasizing that Kanavi’s minor status required Griffin to negotiate directly with his agency. The politician characterized the situation as a “scripted scenario” where the player was systematically manipulated.

“To prevent entrenched exploitative contracting systems,” Ha declared, “government authorities must implement thorough investigations and protective countermeasures.” This intervention signals potential regulatory changes that could reshape player-organization relationships across the esports landscape.

The anticipated final report represents more than just case resolution—it could establish precedent for how leagues handle similar disputes. Industry observers anticipate recommendations for stronger minor protections, clearer agency responsibility guidelines, and stiffer penalties for coercive contracting practices.

This case underscores the urgent need for standardized contractual safeguards, independent legal representation for minor players, and transparent transfer processes. As esports continues its rapid global expansion, establishing fair player treatment standards becomes increasingly critical for sustainable industry growth.

The resolution timeline suggests findings will emerge within days, potentially catalyzing reforms that protect future generations of competitive gamers from similar exploitation.

No reproduction without permission：Game Guides Online » LCK Operation Committee investigating Griffin treatment of Kanavi Understanding the Griffin-Kanavi contract scandal and its impact on esports player protection