Esports, gaming disputes and the role of the International Games and Esports Tribunal (IGET)

As the popularity of esports and gaming has grown, so have associated legal issues, including those related to IP law. Alban Radivojevic explains how the newly established International Games and Esports Tribunal (IGET) is expected to assist. 

The rise in popularity of esports has transformed what was once a niche hobby into a global multi-billion-dollar industry. The esports market is projected to reach US$4.8 billion worldwide in 2025, with the number of users expected to reach 896 million by 2029. 

As the industry has grown, so have legal disputes – whether over player contracts, sponsorship deals, intellectual property (IP) rights, or allegations of cheating and unfair practices. Given the high costs typically associated with litigation, there is increasing recognition of the need for alternative, cost-effective mechanisms to resolve disputes in the esports and gaming sectors. While arbitration and mediation platforms do exist, most are not tailored to the specific dynamics of esports, or they only focus on narrow aspects of it. As a result, dispute resolution in the industry has become fragmented, with parties resorting to a range of forums – often inconsistently and without sector-specific expertise. 

Enter the International Games and Esports Tribunal (IGET), a newly established body designed to provide a specialist forum for resolving disputes within the gaming and esports sectors. 

Esports legal issues and the IGET 

Launched in 2025, IGET was created to fill a longstanding gap in the esports legal ecosystem. It was established by a consortium of stakeholders, including professional teams, tournament organisers and legal experts to provide a neutral, efficient and expert-led forum for resolving disputes across the international gaming landscape. It offers services including mediation, arbitration and expert determination, with a panel of adjudicators selected for their expertise in gaming, esports law, sports arbitration and IP. Its procedures are designed to be fast, confidential and adaptable to the realities of the industry – recognising, for example, the need for swift decisions ahead of tournaments or during ongoing competitive seasons. 

Before IGET, stakeholders in the esports sector had limited and inconsistent access to specialised dispute resolution forums, such as: 

• Esports Integrity Commission (ESIC): A global body focused on maintaining integrity in esports, particularly addressing issues such as cheating, match-fixing and doping. While it has been one of the only esports-specific regulatory bodies, its remit is narrow. ESIC does not typically handle complex legal or contractual disputes and refers such matters to bodies like the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). 
• WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center: WIPO provides alternative dispute resolution services for technology and IP matters, including some gaming-related issues. However, its primary focus remains on IP, and it lacks procedural frameworks and personnel specifically geared toward broader esports governance or contractual issues. 
• Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS): Seen by some as an analogue to esports due to its sports law expertise, CAS has yet to recognise esports under its jurisdiction and has not adjudicated any esports-specific disputes. CAS’s current roster lacks gaming-specialist arbitrators, and no major esports stakeholders have adopted CAS as a default forum. 

IGET addresses many of the shortcomings inherent in these existing systems. Its arbitration and mediation rules are designed specifically for gaming and esports, balancing fairness, speed and flexibility. For instance, IGET allows for expedited arbitration where rapid decisions are essential – such as disputes over player eligibility immediately prior to a tournament. 

Another defining feature of IGET is its panel of arbitrators and mediators, who bring specialist knowledge of esports governance, game development, IP law and digital platforms. This ensures that adjudicators are fluent in the nuances of the industry and capable of issuing decisions that reflect its commercial and cultural realities. IGET also promotes consistency in dispute outcomes, reduces forum shopping and encourages the inclusion of arbitration clauses in esports-related contracts. Its credibility and sector-specific design aim to encourage adoption by players, teams, sponsors and publishers alike. 

Why IGET is necessary for esports and gaming disputes 

To illustrate the need for such a forum, consider the 2019 case of Turner ‘Tfue’ Tenney, a top Fortnite player who sued his team FaZe Clan over an allegedly exploitative contract. The contract gave FaZe rights to as much as 80% of sponsorship deals it procured for Tfue. He argued that the contract violated California law and that he lacked proper legal representation when signing it. 

Tfue filed proceedings in California state court in May 2019. The dispute lasted approximately 15 months, involving prolonged pre-trial motions and extensive public scrutiny. Ultimately, the case was settled out of court in August 2020. 

This case highlights the limitations of general court systems for esports legal disputes. Litigation was slow, costly and poorly suited to the industry’s fast-moving nature. Moreover, many esports players – often young and financially inexperienced – cannot afford the costs of extended legal battles. A dedicated tribunal like IGET, with arbitrators experienced in esports contracts and norms, could have delivered a faster and more informed resolution. The dispute might have been resolved through expedited arbitration or mediation, avoiding the need for lengthy court proceedings. IGET’s specialists could have identified problematic contract clauses early and either reformed or voided them at significantly lower cost. 

IGET represents a critical step in professionalising and stabilising the legal infrastructure of the esports industry. However, its success will depend on widespread adoption by key stakeholders, including publishers, teams and tournament organisers. Much like CAS became the default dispute forum for Olympic sports through contractual incorporation, IGET must secure similar buy-in to become the industry standard. 

Preparing for a rise in esports and gaming disputes 

As the esports industry continues its rapid expansion, legal disputes will grow in both number and complexity. By offering a dedicated, informed and efficient forum, IGET has the potential to bring greater consistency, fairness and maturity to dispute resolution in esports. 

To find out more about esports and gaming IP law or for advice on resolving esports legal issues using the IGET, contact our IP specialists today.  

Alban Radivojevic is a Senior Solicitor at Novagraaf in the UK.