Why are big esports organizations leaving CSGO?

Beginning in early 2020, a concerning trend emerged as multiple established esports entities made the strategic decision to disband their Counter-Strike: Global Offensive teams and exit the competitive landscape entirely.

While economic uncertainty has prompted organizations to exercise greater caution across all gaming titles, CSGO has experienced disproportionately severe impacts. Notable departures include 100 Thieves shuttering their CSGO operations entirely, Gen.G placing their roster on the transfer market with no plans for replacement, and North completely ceasing operations. These exits stem from fundamental structural issues within the game’s ecosystem that have been undermining financial viability for years.

Contemporary esports development has increasingly embraced franchised league structures. This approach involves direct developer engagement with professional scenes to establish unified competitive systems. Organizations purchase permanent slots within these leagues and typically receive revenue sharing from league profits. Modeled after traditional sports organizations like the NFL and NBA, this system has been implemented in Overwatch, League of Legends, and Call of Duty with mixed outcomes. Theoretically, franchising delivers enhanced profitability and operational stability since teams avoid relegation risks and maintain equity stakes in the league itself.

Valve maintains a firm stance against franchising any of its game titles. The company champions an open competitive circuit featuring multiple tournament organizers hosting events globally. Teams must secure direct invitations or navigate qualification tournaments to access premier competitions.

While this decentralized approach creates exciting viewing experiences with frequent elite team matchups in grand finals, it presents significant disadvantages for participating organizations. Teams receive no portion of tournament revenue distributions, and poor performance can eliminate their eligibility for invitations to major events.

Leading tournament organizers including ESL, Flashpoint, and BLAST have attempted to mitigate these challenges through partnership programs. These arrangements guarantee selected teams invitations to specific tournaments and provide modest revenue shares. However, the partnership model frequently fails to adequately offset the substantial costs of maintaining competitive CSGO rosters.

Are top CSGO pro players earning too much money?

The year 2015 marked CSGO’s initial explosive growth phase. Player numbers increased dramatically, while viewership for major tournaments saw unprecedented growth. Comparing DreamHack Winter 2014 with ESL One: Katowice 2015, peak viewership during grand finals events doubled. This expansion triggered substantial wage inflation for elite professional competitors as organizations competed aggressively to secure top-tier talent. This escalation potentially pushed the ecosystem to a tipping point where professional player compensation exceeds sustainable levels for most organizations operating within the circuit system.

A prominent illustration involves Virtus.pro’s contract renewal negotiations with their Polish lineup. With contracts nearing expiration in late 2016, players reportedly received multiple competitive offers from rival organizations. To retain their championship-winning roster, Virtus.pro negotiated four-year contract extensions. The Russian organization described this as the most extensive and costly agreement in esports history at that time.

Organizations initially justified these premium compensation packages based on the game’s demonstrated growth trajectory. However, while CSGO’s player base continued expanding over subsequent years, esports viewership growth rates moderated considerably, while Valve provided limited mechanisms for organizations to enhance profitability from competitions. Players maintained their compensation expectations, organizations continued meeting these demands while anticipating another growth surge. With investment capabilities constrained, numerous organizations have chosen to abandon waiting for this anticipated second boom period.

Can CSGO attract enough sponsors?

Esports’ primary financial advantage lies in attracting external investment and marketing partnerships, predominantly through sponsorship arrangements. Corporations target the valuable demographic of younger audiences. Coca-Cola established significant partnerships with both Overwatch League and League of Legends franchised systems. BMW collaborated with five prominent LoL teams, combining sponsorship with content development initiatives. Numerous celebrities and professional athletes have become direct investors in major esports enterprises.

However, many external investors share common preferences: They favor more refined and family-appropriate content products. Overwatch and League of Legends enforce stringent behavioral guidelines for competitors both during and outside competitive matches. Gameplay presentation resembles animated content rather than realistic depictions.

CSGO has pursued an alternative direction. The game features terrorist factions as primary character archetypes and maintains distinctly violent thematic elements.Consequently, CSGO primarily draws advertising from gaming-adjacent companies. Major brands unaffiliated with gaming typically maintain distance from the title due to content concerns.

Organizations are exiting CSGO due to fundamental financial instability within the competitive ecosystem. Structural transformations are necessary from multiple stakeholders—players, organizations, but most critically from Valve itself. Without implementing these essential changes in the immediate future, additional teams will likely abandon this historically significant game.

The solution requires implementing Complete Guide to competitive sustainability. Teams must reconsider their approach to Weapons Unlock strategies for revenue generation, while also optimizing their Class Guide for operational efficiency. Practical implementation should include revised revenue distribution models, enhanced brand partnership programs, and structured financial planning frameworks that account for market fluctuations.

Common mistakes organizations make include over-investing during growth periods without establishing financial safeguards, failing to diversify revenue streams, and neglecting long-term sustainability planning in favor of short-term competitive gains.

No reproduction without permission：Game Guides Online » Why are big esports organizations leaving CSGO? Understanding the financial crisis in CSGO esports and what needs to change for sustainability