The Restructuring of Global Esports: Signs from the Shift of Money Flow

When The International (TI) prize pool collapsed from $40 million in 2026 to under $5 million in recent editions, many rushed to conclude that esports is dying. But a closer look reveals it is not a collapse but a deep restructuring. Valve changed the Battle Pass model in 2026, severing the community crowdfunding mechanism for TI. As a result, the prize pool dropped more than 90% from its peak, yet the tournament itself remains the most prestigious event in Dota 2. This change forces organizations to seek new revenue streams. In South Korea, Dplus KIA – the team that just won the Esports World Cup (EWC) 2026 in League of Legends – is facing cash flow difficulties. They delayed salary payments to players and are searching for a new owner. The LoL roster cost is around 3 billion won (approximately $2 million), a significant amount that becomes a burden when revenue fails to keep pace. This shows that top competitive performance does not equal financial health. On the flip side, Falcons – the winners of The International 2026 – proactively withdrew from Dota 2 despite having won the highest title. They participated in 18 titles at EWC 2026 but decided to narrow their portfolio. The stated reason is “portfolio balancing and focusing on titles with greater commercial potential.” This is not a sign of weakness but a strategic move: money is not disappearing, it is being reallocated. The concentration of capital into major events backed by Saudi Arabia, such as EWC ($75 million) and the Saudi eLeague (over 4 million SAR for 37 clubs), is reshaping the esports landscape. Meanwhile, the LCK in South Korea is implementing salary caps and luxury taxes to control costs and maintain healthy competition. These are policy responses to the reality that player salaries have risen faster than revenue during the growth phase. The lesson: money still exists but no longer flows easily through the entire system. Organizations relying solely on tournament prize money face high risk. Teams with multi-title models, solid sponsorship backing, and adaptability to new mechanisms will be the winners. This restructuring, though painful, is necessary for esports to mature. Looking ahead, esports will no longer be a race to increase prize pools but a battle for operational efficiency. Teams like Falcons, by proactively cutting, have shown long-term strategy. Conversely, teams like Dplus KIA need financial restructuring even at the peak of achievement. This polarization will intensify in the coming years. For Vietnamese fans, these developments are also a wake-up call. Domestic esports teams need to learn from international experience: cannot rely solely on prize money or fleeting fan support. They must build sustainable business models, diversify revenue streams, and control costs. Only then can Vietnamese esports stand firm in a volatile global context. In summary, the 2026 esports picture is not as gloomy as many think. It is more complex: declines in some areas coexist with booms in others. Esports professionals must recognize this reality to make informed decisions. It is not that esports is dying; it is that esports is changing – and those who adapt quickly will survive.