I have a secret: in 2016, Counter-Strike has higher entertainment value than League of Legends. Sure, League of Legends has the bigger player base, it excels in terms of viewership, it is arguably ahead in broadcasting quality, and is number one by countless other criteria. But Counter-Strike is my personal MVP for 2016––and from an investor’s perspective it should be too. But let’s take one step at a time.

“You must be blind and deaf. Rick Fox, Steve Kaplan, Mark Cuban, Mark Mastrov… they are all investing in League!” and so on and so forth. I get it. How can these successful entrepreneurs be wrong regarding League of Legends’ potential? The answer is they aren’t.

I’m not arguing the game will plateau, or even decline, in fact, I believe it will still grow and become bigger and better. But CS:GO has several things going for it.

Many elements of top-level Counter-Strike are more entertaining, and thus valuable as an esports. One of these things is suspense, especially when it comes to who can win the match.

In Counter-Strike, anything is possible, unlike in League where the same teams always seem to be on top. This year, that’s truer than ever. Sweden’s Fnatic is the odds-on favorite to outclass the rest of the world. “Winning four titles in a row is a monster accomplishment which far out-strips anyone else in the game,” writes analyst Duncan “Thorin” Shields. But 2016 still has a long way to go. Luminosity from Brazil is rising, and so is Natus Vincere from Ukraine. The Danes from Astralis might live up to the full potential again, but so could EnVyUs from France.

Unlike in League of Legends, there is no dominant nation in Counter-Strike. And with the tournament structure consisting of multiple high-class major events per year, there is even more chance for an upset. But that’s not the only reason why CS is more entertaining for the viewer, and thus more valuable for the business.

Counter-Strike’s competitive scene takes place with very little developer involvement. In fact, it might soon be the last top-tier esports title that is mainly run by third-parties.

[perfectpullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Valve’s laissez-faire approach gives Counter-Strike an edge[/perfectpullquote]

And while the production quality of Riot Games’ League of Legends series feels the most TV-like, Valve’s Counter-Strike is the game whose top-level competitive play will not just be like TV, but will be shown in TV—on Turner this summer. That’s only possible because Valve doesn’t care too much about controlling the fate of its game. Sure, it has a say in competitive rulings, it sponsors events, etc., but Valve has nowhere near the control Riot Games claims over its leagues. Valve’s laissez-faire approach gives Counter-Strike an edge in terms of innovation, aspiring talent, competitive diversity and even in monetizing the product. In business terms, one could name it a somewhat liberal market, while Riot’s League clearly tends to be a monopoly.

Of course, the aforementioned issues don’t affect the aesthetic enjoyment of both sports at all. They have no bearing on their games’ graphics, mechanics and gameplay. But that’s exactly why, from the perspective of esports as a branch in the digital mass media entertainment industry, I believe that this year Counter-Strike has the superior narrative as a business case.

Counter-Strike is a game that’s survived since 1999, through multiple failed re-releases, and is now staging a comeback. Who doesn’t like that kind of underdog story?