Franchising – The Future of the LCS

For the 2018 season, significant changes were implemented for both the North American and European League Championship Series (LCS). Citing lesser viewership in the Bo3 format, both leagues reverted to the tried-and-true BO1 format from Spring 2015 to Spring 2016. However, not every change was implemented in both leagues.

For the NA LCS, perhaps the most significant change was the removal of promotion and relegation in favor of a system with permanent member teams, i.e. franchising. Riot gave the following reasons for the decision:

With today’s uncertainty of relegation, making long term bets in the NA LCS is extremely risky. Making large investments — like a long-term sponsorship with a team, or building an expensive training facility to better support players — are often hampered by this risk. Removing relegation makes things less uncertain, unlocks long term investments and hopefully makes the league more competitive from the inside out.

Subsequently, the NA LCS subsequently received over 100 applications, even including some existing teams from the EU LCS. Initial findings have shown that implementing franchising was a successful move that should confirm the stability of the league for many splits to come.

As for the EU LCS, franchising was not implemented for the 2018 season, but numerous sources have reported that a move to permanent members of the league will occur in 2019. This proposal is the latest in a series of changes that the EU LCS is considering as it suffers from a viewership problem compared to its NA counterpart.

For 2018, Riot EU has addressed format and airtime issues by readopting the Bo1 format and moving to a Friday – Saturday schedule. Despite best efforts, however, the EU LCS’ growth will remain stunted by a key structural problem: the convergence of the NA and EU professional player pools.

The Westward Exodus: From EU to NA

Despite having a player pool twice that of NA, EU has experienced a continuous migration of its professional players to the NA LCS in recent years. In the LoL esports environment, it is apparent that pro players have extremely high mobility, with numerous players having played in not just two, but three or more of the 13 professional leagues around the world.

In the past, many EU LCS players have joined teams in the NA LCS for financial reasons. While detailed economic differences between NA and EU are beyond the scope of this article, to summarize:

The US offers salaries that typically dwarf those of Europe, in part due to the purchasing power of the US dollar

The unified market of the US (and Canada to some extent) offers a considerably easier way to expand viewer and fan engagement, compared to the relatively fractured market of Europe and its individual countries, economies, languages, and culture.

Given the structural issue, it is not surprising that four teams in the EU LCS (G2 Esports, Fnatic, Splyce, and Misfits) applied to the NA LCS in 2017. In addition, more than 70 percent of EU pros have sought opportunity in NA, though it is important to note that the recent franchising changes have exacerbated this percentage. While the franchising of the EU LCS should slow the gradual exodus of players to NA, the differences in salaries and financial outlook between the two continents continue to cast an ominous cloud over the EU LCS and its future.

Traditional Sports and the Trajectory of the LCS

While a solution to the disparities between the NA LCS and EU LCS is not immediately apparent, the past history of North America’s traditional sports leagues, e.g. baseball and American football, offer insight to the trajectory of the EU LCS.

Major League Baseball

In the 19th century, professional baseball in the US was governed by the National League, which significantly reduced the mobility of professional baseball players and gave power to the clubs to promote stability in the league. Many competing leagues emerged to challenge the NL, the most prominent being the American League at the turn of the 20th century. In 1902, the NL and AL signed a National Agreement that formed an effective duopoly in professional baseball and established the World Series between the two leagues, which has remained in place for over a century. After the 1994 strike, both leagues were united under the new MLB administration.

National Football League

While the NFL dates back to 1920, the modern structure of the league came about in the 1960s. The emergence of the rival AFL led to massive bidding wars for college prospects amongst other heated forms of financial competition. Ultimately, the AFL-NFL merger at the end of the 1960s lead to the creation of the modern league, with two conferences (AFC and NFC) facing off in the annual Super Bowl, the biggest sporting event in the US today.

The League Championship Series

From first glance, the LCS has had a remarkably different history in comparison to either MLB or NFL. The LCS consists of two sister leagues that were both founded in 2013 to consolidate the decentralized LoL esports tournament schedule into a two-split structure mimicking that of soccer leagues around the world, complete with promotion and relegation. Yet, economic realities have shifted the LCS towards a structure that perhaps most resembles the NFL, with shorter, group-stage like regular seasons culminating in dual 6-team single-elimination playoffs.

While both the NA LCS and EU LCS were founded by the same company, the leagues attempted to diverge from each other to reflect the different environments that each operated in. In Summer 2016, the NA LCS shifted to a dual-stream, Bo3 3-day weekend format, while the EU LCS adopted a Bo2, and later a two-group Bo3 format. None of these formats led to significant increases in viewership interest, and in response, both leagues have converged back to the Bo1 format. (Further convergence is expected in 2019 when the EU LCS will franchise).

Despite the NA LCS and EU LCS being “rival” leagues, it is clear that their mutual owner, Riot, would prefer to see both succeed financially. Despite best efforts, the two leagues remain in indirect competition for viewers, and such a situation is not likely to remedy itself in the near future. As such, it is possible for the LCS to continue on its current trajectory to mimic the traditional sports leagues, and unification is a possible outcome given current existing economic realities.

The rest of this article addresses a hypothetical unified League Champion Series, hereby referred to as the UCS. Specifically, this article aims to present the underlying framework of a possible UCS that would appeal to the combined player pools and markets of North America and Europe.

Regular Season

Each team would play each other twice (double round-robin Bo1s). Each team would play 38 matches a split, more in line with other leagues around the world, for a total of 380 matches. The regular season would last 10 weeks, leading to two possible schedules:

38 matches each week: 8 matches on Thursday, 10 matches each on Friday – Sunday 18 teams play 4 matches per week 2 teams each week only play 3 matches

40 matches each week: 10 matches each on Thursday – Sunday Each day, 10 teams would play two matches each Every team plays 4 matches per week Short week: 20 matches over Saturday and Sunday



LoLEsports production would move to the East Coast to allow for suitable airtimes across the North American and European timezones. Given that most of the population in NA and EU reside in the Central American, Eastern American, Western European, and Central European time zones, matches would be scheduled from 4 PM CET to 2 AM CET. This time interval could be reduced if the UCS were to adopt a five-day or a six-day schedule instead.

Playoffs

The top half of the table, i.e. 10 teams, would qualify for the two-week playoffs. The playoffs would have the same format as the LPL, except with one more round to accommodate the two extra teams, as well as no third-place match. Reseeding would be applied between rounds.

The playoffs would last two weeks, with all matches Bo5. In the first week, matches are played from Friday to Sunday as follows.

Friday Match A: 8 v 9 Match B: 7 v 10

Saturday: Match C: 6 v higher seed of Match A/B winners Match D: 5 v lower seed of Match A/B winners

Sunday: Match E: 4 v higher seed of Match C/D winners Match F: 3 v lower seed of Match C/D winners



In Week 2, the final four teams play the semifinals and finals at an arena with thousands of spectators:

Saturday: Match G: 2 v higher seed of Match E/F winners Match H: 1 v lower seed of Match E/F winners

Sunday: Match I (Grand Final): Winners of Match G/H



International Competition

As the successor to the EU and NA LCS, the UCS would inherit its current seeds at the major international competitions.

For MSI, the two participants in the Spring finals would qualify. The winner would directly qualify to the main event, while the runner-up would enter the second round of the play-in stage.

For the WC, six teams from the UCS would qualify:

Two auto-qualified teams Summer playoffs champion: Group Stage, Pool 1 Summer playoffs runner-up: Group Stage, Pool 2

Three teams based off championship points Most points: Group Stage, Pool 2 Second-most points: Group Stage, Pool 2 Third-most points: Play-in, Pool 1

Regional Finals winner King-of-the-hill gauntlet with 4 teams Winner: Play-in, Pool 1



Two Conferences vs One

An important question to consider would be to discuss whether or not the UCS would mimic both the NFL and MLB by adopting two conferences of 10 teams each, appropriately named the North American Conference (NAC) and the European Conference (EUC). Such a move would honor the separate histories of the NA LCS and EU LCS, and perhaps keep existing rules such as the 3/5ths residency rule.

Were the two-conference structure to be adopted, the playoffs structure would be revised into two brackets like the NFL, with each conference occupying its own half. Five teams from each conference would qualify for their respective brackets, and the NAC and EUC champions would meet in “the Finals” (exact name TBD). The regular season would not be affected, as all teams would still play each other twice regardless of conference.

The “EU-NA faceoff” (exact name TBD) would implicitly continue the EU-NA rivalry at an international level. The playoff finalists would essentially be playing for a higher seed at the international competition. In addition, keeping the conferences separate in the playoffs would in practice ensure that the NAC and EUC would send a minimum of two teams to Worlds, with two wild card spots remaining.

The Logistics and the Economics behind the UCS

The creation of the UCS poses numerous ramifications for Western LoL esports.

From the perspective of Riot, consolidating its teams at one studio could result in significant operational savings and efficiency improvements. Salaries would rise because the EU LCS players would be paid more, in line with their NA LCS counterparts.

From the perspective of the franchises’ owners, more competition would arise given the number of teams being doubled. Simultaneously, the owners would likely approve of having full access to both the NA and EU markets.

From the perspective of the players, their bargaining power would significantly increase, as they can now move between teams significantly easier. Subsequently, the UCS would likely result in an average increase of salary for the players. The primary downside would be the relocation of the EU LCS and NA LCS players, though they are unlikely to object given that players have known to be moved across continents.

From the perspective of the viewers, a unified stream could lead to greater retention and interest. The greater number of teams would likely shake up the standings by presenting more unique matchups. The longer streaming schedule would be a significant increase in complexity compared to the existing 5-hour blocks as of Spring 2018. It might be prudent to look at the LPL, whose similar franchising model and ongoing expansion has necessitated a 6-day weekly schedule that could keep viewers engaged more.

Conclusion

At the writing of this article, the unified LCS is likely to be tabled given the significant logistical changes of merging two separate leagues together. Nonetheless, a potential UCS could be worth considering down the line: while current conditions remain relatively stable in both the NA LCS and EU LCS, new economic realities could emerge that could necessitate an evaluation of the LCS going forward.