Former XSET VALORANT players sue Org over unpaid merchandise revenue

In a surprising twist, several former members of XSET’s VALORANT division have taken their grievances against the organization to... Shubh | 30. August 2023

In a surprising twist, several former members of XSET’s VALORANT division have taken their grievances against the organization to the courtroom. 

Allegations of unpaid revenue shares have led four ex-players and their coach to file separate legal cases against XSET.  Zachary “zekken” Patrone, Matthew “Cryocells” Panganiba, Jordan “AYRIN” He, Rory “dephh” Jackson, and Don “SyykoNT” Muir, a roster collectively known as the backbone of XSET’s VALORANT team, are at the forefront of this legal battle.

Their core claim revolves around XSET’s failure to honor an agreement that stipulated a percentage of revenue from merchandise sales would be distributed to them, particularly from the highly sought-after 2022 Champions bundle. This annual offering introduces in-game items inspired by the tournament, with a portion of the profits traditionally shared among participating teams.

The agreement between XSET and its players

At the heart of this dispute is the contractual agreement that was supposed to govern the revenue-sharing between XSET and its VALORANT players. According to the agreement, XSET committed to a revenue-sharing model where they would evenly split in-game skin revenue with the team in a 50/50 ratio. This meant that each player and the coach would receive 8.33% of all skin revenue sales.

This agreement was further reinforced in an addendum added in August 2022, which clarified that 50% of proceeds from all in-game digital item sales would go to the players and the coach. However, it is this very agreement that has become a point of contention, with the former players alleging that XSET did not uphold their end of the bargain.

Legal Proceedings 

The ex-players and coach have lodged their cases in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of California. Central to their claims is the notion that XSET disregarded an arbitration agreement they had in place, designed to address disputes of this nature. Seeking a resolution to their grievances, they aim to compel XSET into arbitration and, ultimately, hold the organization accountable for failing to uphold their end of the agreement.

Moreover, their legal filings also insist that XSET should bear the financial burden of the associated legal costs and fees.  The former players assert that XSET is deliberately shirking its responsibility to cover the costs associated with arbitration, which they believe were previously agreed upon. XSET’s counterargument hinges on the distinction between arbitrator’s fees and the broader costs of arbitration.

XSET vehemently disagrees with the allegations put forth by their former players and coach and expresses confidence in disproving claims that the contracts were amended to their disadvantage.

Header: Colin Young-Wolff | Riot Games