Skip to content

Esports: classifying the player’s contract when the club goes into liquidation

October 20, 2026  | Hugo SOLARD

Esports training room: rows of gaming stations and chairs under purple lighting

In a judgment of 25 September 2026 (RG no. 23/06076), the Lyon Court of Appeal ruled on how to classify the contract of a professional esports player whose club had gone into compulsory liquidation.

The facts

A professional player was hired on a fixed-term employment contract (CDD) in 2020. Salaries went unpaid, and the club was then placed into compulsory liquidation. The AGS, the French wage guarantee scheme that covers sums owed to employees when their employer is liquidated, disputed his status as an employee on two grounds:

  • the contract was allegedly sham, since the player had many other activities;
  • the contract was allegedly void for lack of the required approval.

What the court held

A written fixed-term contract, payslips and a certificate of employment create an apparent employment contract: it is then for the AGS to prove that it is sham.

The AGS pointed to the player’s many activities (television presenter, commentator, sole trader, Discord partnerships) to argue that he did not really work for the club. The court nevertheless examined each of them: one month of television, two evening commentaries, on 24 and 31 December, and a sole-trader business producing sponsored content, unrelated to his work as a player and compatible with a 35-hour working week. These activities were ancillary.

In finding that he was an employee, the court also noted the regular training sessions, his participation in 101 tournaments, his promotion of the team and the employer’s use of the player’s public profile.

Finally, the argument that the fixed-term contract was void for lack of approval was dismissed outright.

Key takeaways

  • The court did not have to establish instructions, supervision and sanctions: the written contract shifted the burden of proof. Without a written employment contract, or with a mere “gamer agreement”, it is for the player to prove subordination (imposed schedule, fines, exclusivity, etc.).
  • The court’s approach to players holding several activities at once, which is common in esports (streaming, casting, content creation), is noteworthy. If poorly managed, such activities could also lead to the contract being reclassified.
  • In a sector where closures and insolvency proceedings are now part of the landscape, rulings on how to classify the player’s contract are becoming more frequent.

What comes next?

Bill no. 2106 “for responsible and attractive esports”, promoted by the French union of professional esports clubs (UFCEP), would abolish the current esports fixed-term contract and create a new player contract. It has not yet been debated: now is the time for clubs, players and organisers to engage with it. In the meantime, review your contracts.

MOSAIK advises esports stakeholders on all these issues: employment law, player status, contracts, partnerships, structuring and events.

Hugo Solard

Lawyer