Franchising has been confirmed for the North American League of Legends Championship series and a big question on everyone's mind is that if it would in fact work for its European counterpart. In this guest editorial, I would like to take a look at what are in my eyes the pros and cons of a franchising system.



First and foremost one has to understand what franchising entails. The first and defining characteristic is that relegation is no longer a thing and the selected brands will become partners of the league. Furthermore, the teams that are currently in the NALCS are in no way guaranteed to get a slot, and in fact the partners that are looked at are the ones that can pay the $10 million buy-in while being stable franchises at the same time: Teams like TSM and C9 come to mind as well as dignitas and Team Liquid with their massive backing.



According to Riot, performance incentives will be in place to force a team to be competitive, meaning a team cannot hover on the bottom of the league for years on end, lest his spot in the LCS be revoked. Challenger series will be rebooted and turned into an academy league, where each franchised team will get an opportunity to nurture young talent. Alongside this, Riot Games have announced that they will help funding the launch of a players association and also a media revenue share for the teams in the league on top of some kind of merchandise deal.

Shared monetization is what was clearly lacking.

An argument for franchising is that the teams are more equal in footing and have the similar means to compete for the top spot. In franchised sports leagues (NHL, NFL, NBA etc.) the variety in who becomes the champion is significantly bigger than in relegation-based leagues. The Super Bowl, for example, has been won by 19 different teams and the World Series has been won by 21 different teams.



While not directly tied to the franchising model, many leagues that do employ it -- particularly in North American sports -- have tools to mitigate randomness in their playoff stages. Through the format, a franchise that is consistently the best throughout the season is protected against dropping a single game and losing on a championship that clearly belongs to them. If the playoffs in League of Legends were best-of-1s, the list of winners would look vastly different, and the same is true for traditional franchised sports. In the NBA, where the playoffs gamers are best-of-7s, the best team is accurately depicted after a season of play.



Even then, it is shown in the winners that it is in fact more likely for the teams with larger financial backing to come out ahead even in a franchise system. The most powerful brands and teams in League of Legends share similar characteristics and monetary security (Fnatic, Team Solo Mid, Cloud9, Immortals, etc.) and they are the ones that will continue to stay on top even in a franchise model as long as they remain to be the most appealing teams for the best players to be a part of.



La Liga and the Premier league come out with the similar winners in their regular season: The biggest teams with the most money. Their tournament equivalents (Copa Del Rey and the FA Cup) have a large variety of finalists that matches and sometimes top the numbers that that franchised leagues present. If comparisons are to be made between the variety in the amount of winners in the franchise model and a relegation model, you must look at the similar cases and find that there is in fact no difference.

TSM have made every NA LCS final. Photo by: LoL Esports Flickr.com

The teams with larger financial backing tend to come out ahead even in a franchise system.

A relegation system takes its time to fully function, to filter out bottom feeders that do not belong. With time, the ten teams that belong will be there through "natural selection", a survival of the fittest. While I am happy there are incentives to compete for the teams that are going to be in the 2018 NA LCS, I find it very hard to believe that at esports’ young age a franchised system will not have bottom-feeding teams sucking on the revenue share tit that teams will be provided for four years.



It could happen that the teams that get through Riot’s vetting process are the right ones and a healthy and competitive league is created right off the bat, but the relegation system is still guaranteed to do that, albeit slower. Arguments have been made about how there has to be some kind of protection for people’s investments, but last time I checked every investment comes with risk. On top of that, I have never seen a team that does not belong in relegation be in relegation. That CLG season where they went to relegation and played vs. Curse Academy to eventually get a free win against Hecarim mid? They belonged there. The same can be said for the most recent "big dog" in relegation, Team Liquid.



The plus side is that teams within a franchised league are given power to shape the league and be a governing body in how the league is run. There is a sense of a common goal within a franchise system and teams can work together to establish what in their eyes is the best solution. The most standout point of Riot Games’ announcement is the monetization of the stream and the benefits for the teams. In the end this is what was clearly lacking. Most teams in the LCS are operating at negatives and this is what will take the league forward, franchised or not. I hope that something similar will come to the EU LCS or you will see me and a lot of others packing our bags.



Teams within a franchised league are given power to shape the league and be a governing body in how the league is run.

The North American LCS has an advantage that its teams appeal to a very clear demographic in comparison to Europe that has multiple demographics from different countries with different languages, but creating a league system that caters to such extensive palette of nationalities is a problem that doesn’t have a clear solution in my mind.



One thing that can be tried is the establishing of national leagues, where team align with specific targeted demographics, much like traditional sports where fans will rally behind teams from their region (city, country, etc.). The top teams of every regional league can then band together in a sort of “Champions League” to compete for sports for the World Championship and the title of “best team in Europe”.



The largest countries could have the most impactful leagues with the most slots in place for the so called Champions League -- France, Germany, Spain etc. -- and smaller countries would band together or create some sort of Wildcard league. Organisations that are based in less relevant countries would just have to relocate from Berlin to what makes the most sense for them with their active roster and plans.



Why is something like this potentially good for the European LCS? The french crowd at worlds was amazing, the Spanish fans are some of the most passionate you will ever come across, the Nordic people are some of the most hardcore gamers you will ever see and so forth. You'll have countries supporting teams that stem and come from their own league and you will capture the true essence of what Europe really is and the European football model is a proven model.



In the end I truly believe that the way forward for the LCS is revenue share and proper monetization, franchised or not, and I have full faith in the crew over here in Europe and that their decisions will push the EULCS to prosperity.





This is a guest editorial and as such does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Cybersport.com

