Global esports: Prize pools shrink, salaries swell – A signal of restructuring

When Team Falcons announced their withdrawal from Dota 2 in July 2026, many fans were shocked. The team had just won The International 2026, the most prestigious tournament of the game, yet decided to stop playing just months later. The stated reason was 'portfolio restructuring' and a focus on 'long-term sustainability'. Behind the brief announcement lies a harsh reality: the global esports industry is undergoing a fundamental shift in financial flows, with tournament prize pools shrinking sharply while player salaries continue to balloon. The big picture from Silicon Valley to Seoul shows that esports is not dying, but undergoing a painful restructuring surgery. The numbers speak for themselves: The International's prize pool fell from a peak of $40 million in 2026 to $18.9 million in 2026, then to just around $3.4 million in 2026. In subsequent years, the prize pool remained in the low millions – a drop of over 90% from the peak. The main cause came from Valve's decision – Dota 2's publisher – to change the Battle Pass mechanism. Previously, players could buy Battle Passes and a portion of the revenue was added to TI's prize pool, creating a 'community-funded tournament' cycle. When Valve removed that crowdfunding mechanism, the money flow from the community to TI was immediately severed. The collapse of TI's prize pool is not a sign that Dota 2 players are leaving, but the result of a product change by the publisher. However, the impact on the ecosystem is huge. Teams dependent on tournament prize money suddenly lost a major revenue source. In that context, the emergence of the Esports World Cup (EWC) with a total prize pool of $75 million in 2026 and over three dozen competing titles created a new money magnet. Saudi Arabia also launched the Saudi eLeague 2026 with over 4 million Saudi Riyals, gathering 37 clubs – an ambitious boost for Middle Eastern esports. However, the concentration of capital into a few mega-tournaments raises questions about sustainability. If previously a team could thrive by playing many small tournaments, now they must qualify for EWC to have a chance at a hefty reward. This creates immense pressure on teams without big names or without connections to investment funds. The story of Dplus KIA (DK) – the League of Legends champion at EWC 2026 – is a painful example. Despite winning one of the most prestigious tournaments in the world, DK faced cash flow difficulties. The team was forced to seek a new owner, and there were reports of delayed player salaries. The cost of DK's LoL roster is around 3 billion KRW (about $2 million), a high figure compared to their revenue-generating ability. This situation exposes a paradox: winning a tournament does not equate to financial success. The imbalance between income and expenditure is a chronic problem in esports, and it is time for leagues to act. The LCK – Korea's premier LoL league – has implemented a salary cap and luxury tax. This move aims to prevent player prices from rising faster than revenue generation. Teams that spend beyond the cap will have to pay additional taxes, which can be redistributed to maintain fair competition. This is a long-term intervention, giving clubs time to restructure their finances. Alongside the stories of DK and Falcons, the shift of investment capital also deserves attention. Multi-title organizations like Falcons may leave Dota 2 but still maintain many other titles. This shows that their decision is more about portfolio management than a sign of crisis. However, a TI champion leaving the arena is a warning to the entire industry: without a solid commercial foundation, even a champion team cannot survive forever. Some analysts argue that esports is not shrinking in scale but merely changing its financial distribution structure. Money still exists, but it no longer flows easily through the entire system as before. Major tournaments, commercially viable games, and sustainably operated organizations will be the beneficiaries. Conversely, teams that rely solely on tournament prize money and players with high salaries that do not generate corresponding commercial value will be eliminated. Vietnam is not outside this wave. Vietnamese LoL teams have made a mark internationally but face the same problem: rising team operating costs while sponsorship and prize money sources are unstable. This urgently calls for building sustainable business models, diversifying revenue streams, and controlling costs. Looking ahead, esports may become 'stingier' but also healthier. Organizations having to calculate more carefully the real value of each expense is a healthy development. Fans may see fewer flashy teams but more truly sustainable clubs. The question is: will Vietnamese teams be agile enough to adapt to the new game? Or will they repeat the Dplus KIA scenario – winning matches but losing on the books? Esports is not dying; it is maturing. And every maturation comes with pain. This article is based on in-depth analysis from international esports experts. Tournament prize and financial data have been cross-checked from multiple sources to ensure accuracy and objectivity.