Esports: A Specialist Arbitration Forum for Europe, the Middle East and Africa
By Ian Felice, Partner, Hassans International Law Firm, Gibraltar
The independent commission appointed by the English Premier League to determine financial fair play charges against Manchester City FC has recently attracted significant media attention in the context of the adjudication of sports-related disputes. Much has been made about the duration of the proceedings, the likely outcome now that the initial ruling has been delivered, and the appeals to come.
The reality, however, is that sport has long sought to resolve its disputes outside the national courts system. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, for example, has operated since 1984, and it is now the main forum for the determination of sports disputes.
Its work ranges from doping violations to player transfer disputes. Its success rests on the ability to trot out specialist decision-makers, keep levels of confidentiality and issue enforceable awards. The delivery of swift, decisive outcomes in a world that needs that speed of resolution is the driver here - the sports scene simply cannot wait for the wheels of normal justice to grind at their usual speed, although some may be forgiven for doubting this given the length of time it has taken to determine the Manchester City FC charges, with its 750-page index, the 42-day hearing featuring 27 witnesses and 7,000 pages of transcript…
A dedicated tribunal for Riot Games' esports ecosystem
At a different end of the spectrum, Riot Games launched the Dispute Resolution for Riot Games' Esports (EMEA) in November 2024.
It is an independent arbitration court for disputes between teams, players and coaches in Riot's League of Legends and VALORANT ecosystems in the EMEA region. The tribunal deals with the disputes that most often arise in professional esports: unpaid salaries, bonuses, prize money and transfers. It does not cover disputes with tournament organisers licensed by Riot to run regional Tier 2 leagues. Using the tribunal is voluntary. It has jurisdiction only where the parties have agreed to submit their dispute to it.
Administration, seat and applicable standard
The German sports law firm Martens Rechtsanwälte set up the tribunal at Riot's request and runs it. Its seat is in Zurich, and Chapter 12 of the Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law of 18 December 1987 governs its proceedings. This follows traditional sports arbitration, which relies on Switzerland's liberal framework for international arbitration.
The most notable feature is that awards are made ex aequo et bono, that is, on the basis of fairness and equity, without applying national law. A sole arbitrator chosen from a closed list of 14 decides each case. By default, there is a single round of written submissions and no oral hearing.
Costs, access and enforcement
Claimants pay an advance handling fee of €500 to €4,000, depending upon the amount claimed. The parties then share equally a fixed arbitrator fee of €1,000 to €5,000.
Riot's Legal Aid Fund helps parties who can show they cannot meet these costs.
If a party does not comply with an award, Riot may impose sporting or financial sanctions.
An encouraging start
The tribunal's first case was filed in August 2025, ten months after the tribunal was created. It was settled amicably less than six weeks after filing.
As proceedings are subject to strict confidentiality rules, there is no public ledger of its caseload, so there is no easy way to determine how widely-used it has become since its creation.
Looking ahead
Quite apart from the mere establishment of the tribunal highlighting the evolving maturity of esports, it serves as reminder that sports embrace the existence of a forum for clubs, players and coaches to air their grievances in an affordable, specialist way.
Those looking to question whether resolution of the Manchester City FC case, notwithstanding its complexity, was properly served by a parallel tribunal would do well to look at the esports tribunal as a more positive light on alternative dispute resolution in the field of sport.
The Author may be contacted by e-amil at ‘
