The CS2 Era: How the End of Franchise Leagues Is Reshaping the Esports Ecosystem

Counter-Strike has always been an open competition. Teams fought their way to the top through qualifiers, rather than via investors’ wallets. But by 2023, the CS:GO/CS2 ecosystem had begun to resemble a closed club. ESL and BLAST controlled the tournament scene through partnership agreements: organisations paid for guaranteed slots, whilst the remaining places were decided through qualifiers. This created a paradox – teams such as Evil Geniuses finished at the bottom of the table for years, yet retained their slots thanks to their contracts. Second- and third-tier teams effectively had no way of moving up without buying a franchise.

On 3 August 2023, Valve released a statement titled ‘A Level Playing Field’. Three key requirements were to come into force from 2025: organisers must not have conflicts of interest with teams; invitations must be based on Valve’s ranking system (VRS) or open qualifiers; and all payments to teams must be transparent.

Valve stated explicitly: “Counter-Strike is at its best when teams compete on a level playing field and when ability is the only limit to their success. Over the past few years, we've seen professional Counter-Strike drift away from that ideal. The ecosystem has become gradually less open, with access to the highest levels of competition increasingly gated by business relationships”

How organisers have adapted to the new rules

ESL and BLAST did not resist – they restructured their models. But their approaches differed. ESL focused on prize money. The company announced $22 million for teams in 2025–2026. This sum includes prize pools, payments to all participating teams, as well as 10 per cent of revenue and 25 per cent of ESL’s profit from Tier 1 events. Ulrich Schulze, Senior Vice President of the ESL Faceit Group, stated: “We will shift the revenue-sharing model from individual teams to all participating teams.”

BLAST has taken a different approach. Rather than simply making payments, the company has overhauled its entire tournament system. BLAST Premier has been replaced by three new formats: BLAST Bounty (32 teams), BLAST Open (16 teams) and BLAST Rivals (top 8 VRS). Investments in the innovative project in 2025 amounted to $8.5 million. This amount includes both the prize money of the tournaments and the funds for their holding. BLAST Vice President Andrey Explained: "As part of these changes, we have created stronger financial incentives for teams and a system that will allow the world's best teams in good shape to receive awards and be encouraged to participate in Blast Premier tournaments"

The difference in strategies is telling. ESL has opted for financial compensation – it is trying to retain the loyalty of top teams through money. BLAST has opted for a product overhaul – it is restructuring the tournaments themselves, making them more interesting for viewers. It remains to be seen which strategy will prove more sustainable, but the very fact that organisers no longer have a monopoly on decision-making is already a victory for the open system.

New organisers – PGL and StarLadder – have announced 11 Tier 1 events in 2026, posing a direct challenge to the ESL-BLAST duopoly. The open ecosystem has lowered the barrier to entry, and the market has come to life. This direct challenge to the monopoly is an effect that Valve probably didn’t even consider when making its decision. Simply by removing the barriers to entry, they set off a chain reaction.

VRS as the new arbiter

Valve Regional Standings (VRS) is the official ranking system that determines tournament invitations. The ranking is tied to a five-player squad, rather than to the organisation. Factors include match results, opponent strength, LAN performances and prize money. This is a technical solution, but it is underpinned by an important principle: the ranking follows the players, not the brands.

As of August 2026, the VRS top 10 looks like this:

• Team Spirit (Europe) – 2011 VRS;
• Team Falcons (Europe) – 1950;
• MOUZ (Europe) – 1873;
• 9z (America) – 1847;
• Team Vitality (Europe) – 1,836;
• NAVI (Europe) – 1,802;
• Legacy (Americas) – 1,773;
• FURIA (Americas) – 1,771;
• BetBoom (Europe) – 1,742;
• Aurora (Europe) – 1,690.

The appearance of 9z (Argentina) in 4th place and Aurora (Turkey) in the top 10 is a direct result of the open system. Teams that would not have had access to top-tier tournaments under a franchise model are now making their way through on the strength of their results. This is changing not only the tournament brackets but also the sponsorship market. Regional brands are gaining access to a global audience through their teams, and this brings new money into the ecosystem.

The sticker reform: a disaster for the mid-tier

The open system gave Tier 2 teams a theoretical path to any top-tier tournament. But this is precisely where the main financial blow struck.

Ahead of the IEM Cologne Major 2026, Valve completely overhauled the sticker system. The mechanics changed radically: instead of capsules with random sets, there is now a token shop with direct purchases; instead of a fixed price, the price is dynamic and based on demand. Income distribution has also been revised. Valve takes half of all sales for itself. The remaining 50% is distributed between the operator (5%) and the teams (45%). At the same time, strict rules apply within organizations – 50% to the players and 50% to the club itself.

The result proved devastating:

The result proved devastating: one of the Stage 1 teams earned around $120,000, compared to approximately $600,000 from capsules at the Budapest Major. Sinners Esports co-founder Moritz ‘Askadar’ Straube stated: ‘As euphoric and happy as we were, and as many tears we shed that we had finally made the Major, that was pretty quickly squashed when we saw all this, and we were, like, 'This is shit'.”

This isn’t just a problem for a few teams. It is a structural threat to the entire ecosystem. Tier-2 teams act as a ‘feeder’ for Tier-1 teams. They nurture new players who, after two or three years, move on to top clubs. If Tier 2 dies out, Tier 1 will have no new blood. And without new blood, the level of competition drops, spectator interest wanes, and the entire CS2 economy begins to falter.

The first casualties have already emerged: Gaimin Gladiators disbanded their CS2 squad on 22 June 2026, citing changes to the ecosystem directly. AMKAL Esports withdrew from CS2 at the end of 2025 for similar reasons. As Esports Insider reports, qualifying for a Major was a guaranteed payout for smaller organisations, bridging the gap between salary commitments and modest local partnerships. When this funding dries up, management must decide whether to retain an expensive global CS2 roster or redirect funds to disciplines with more predictable revenue streams.

Viewership records and betting: the open system is working

Despite financial problems, viewer interest in CS2 is breaking records. The three most-watched CS tournaments in history are the last three Majors. The IEM Cologne Major 2026 became the first tournament to surpass the 100 million-hour viewing mark. Reasons for the growth:

• Global expansion: tournaments in Astana, Bishkek, Melbourne, Cluj and Chengdu.
• New regional heroes: The MongolZ, 9z, Aurora.
• Roster changes: s1mple at FaZe, m0NESY and NiKo at Team Falcons.
• Community streams and co-casting, attracting a new audience.

The Cologne 2026 final between the Falcons and FURIA set an all-time record for peak viewership in the history of Counter-Strike – 2,750,036 viewers. The previous record had stood for almost five years – the final of the PGL Major Stockholm 2021 (2,748,434). The new record surpassed the old one by fewer than two thousand viewers. The Falcons v Spirit semi-final attracted 2,216,902, The Spirit v G2 quarter-final drew 2,044,763 viewers.

Open qualifiers have a direct impact on the betting market. CS2 accounts for 57 per cent of the global esports betting volume. The esports betting market in 2025 is projected to reach $2.8 billion (+12 per cent compared to 2024). There has been a 61 per cent increase in live betting – bets placed in real time during matches. The logic is simple: open qualifiers → more unpredictable matches → higher unpredictability coefficient → bookmakers profit from volatility → betting volumes rise. These aren’t just figures – it’s an economic chain that demonstrates that an open system generates more revenue than a closed one.

What other industries can learn from Valve

Valve has shown that meritocracy attracts viewers and breaks the mould. Riot Games, observing Valve’s experience, has begun moving towards openness: in 2024, it allowed LoL and VALORANT teams to collaborate with bookmakers and authorised third-party tournaments. From 2027, the VCT will introduce the risk of elimination for partner teams – a step towards openness without completely relinquishing control.

The Overwatch League is an example of the failure of a closed model. Organisations paid $20 million to join, and the league collapsed. Its successor operates on a partnership model with no entry fees. The contrast with CS2, where there are no entry fees and teams compete on equal terms, speaks for itself.

Konvoy VC sums up the key lesson: “Games hoping for a long-term future in esports must lean towards an open ecosystem. Maximum control will stifle growth at the grassroots level, limiting the enthusiasm of local fans who could become spectators, paying customers or even the next generation of talent.”

But the sticker reform also reveals the flip side: openness without financial safeguards creates risks. As Strafe notes, the new model concentrates sticker revenue at the top. The traditions of sticker-funded academies and regional rosters are particularly vulnerable. The owner of Aurora described how revenue from Major stickers could cover the annual budget of some teams.

What Valve might do next

The open ecosystem has proven its worth in one respect – it attracts viewers and creates a competitive environment. But it has also laid bare a problem: without a well-thought-out revenue-sharing system, openness favours the strong and penalises the weak.

Valve could follow several scenarios. The first is to leave everything as it is, in which case Tier 2 will continue to decline, and the ecosystem will become even more elitist than it was under the franchise system. The second is to introduce a minimum guaranteed income for teams that qualify for a Major, regardless of their final placings. The third is to set up a support fund for Tier 2 teams using a portion of the revenue from stickers or tournament entry fees.

Only time will tell which scenario Valve will choose. But one thing is certain: their decision to scrap the franchise model has already changed CS2 forever. The question isn’t whether the industry will return to the way things were – it won’t. The question is whether Valve will be able to refine the system so that it is sustainable for all participants, not just the top clubs.