Parts 1 (see here)[1] and 2 (see here)[2] of this series mapped the scope of safeguarding in esports and examined the initiatives of video game publishers and esports federations respectively. This final Part turns to online platform providers — the infrastructure through which most gamers encounter both esports content and the toxic behaviours that safeguarding must address. It then sets out overarching recommendations for the esports ecosystem as a whole.

The third esports stakeholder category comprises online platform providers like YouTube and Twitch. These platforms are crucial for gamers as they use them to broadcast gameplay and esports matches. The use of online platforms allows for the regulation of spectators’ conduct during live streams. Spectators can post comments, often anonymously, during live streams, which can lead to the use of discriminatory and violent language, with spectators directing discriminatory or violent language at gamers, especially prominent esports players and female streamers, under the cover of anonymity.[3]

This article examines the safeguarding initiatives of the two dominant online platform providers, Twitch and YouTube, and looks at some recommendations for stakeholders.

The[1] athlete–brand sponsorship deals model has been changing rapidly. Roger Federer’s partnership with On Running[2] has provided a reference point for athletes looking to build their own equity deals, which are increasingly common. The appeal is clear: equity can outlast an athlete’s competitive years and, where the business succeeds, deliver returns that far exceed any fixed‑fee sponsorship arrangement.

For brands, the takeaway is not that equity should replace sponsorship wholesale, but that it can be a powerful tool where the athlete is genuinely capable of shifting the company’s trajectory. The real difference between partnerships that generate headlines and those that produce sustained value lies more in how the deal is structured than in the percentage of equity granted on day one.

This article sets out the three main structures of athlete-brand deals: traditional fee, pure equity and hybrid, and the trade-offs of each, before working through the key provisions of the sponsorship, investment and shareholders' agreements that underpin an equity deal. It provides some key negotiation points to consider for both brands and athletes when negotiating and structuring these deals.

This article looks at:

• The sponsorship fee model
• The pure equity model
• The hybrid model
• Key legal provisions in hybrid structures
• Key Issues in Sponsorship Agreements
  • Managing reputational issues
  • Performance obligations
  • IP/Image Rights
• Investment Agreements
  • Type of Investment Agreement
  • Dilution of the athlete’s equity
  • Vesting of the athlete’s equity
• Shareholders’ Agreement
  • Leaver provisions
  • Buyback of the athlete’s equity by the brand
  • Information rights of the athlete
  • Transfer restrictions for the athlete’s equity
  • Exit rights
• Conclusion

In the first half of 2025, Real Madrid C.F underwent two separate UEFA disciplinary proceedings arising from supporter misconduct during two different matches of the UEFA Champions League.

One involved a mass chant at Santiago Bernabéu directed at rival coach Pep Guardiola; the other, a single supporter performing a Nazi salute during a match played in London, an incident witnessed by almost no one and generating no media coverage at the time. Yet in both cases, the CAS decisions reached materially the same conclusions on the governing principles: Real Madrid was found liable, the UEFA sanctions were upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.

The two awards - CAS 2025/A/11261 Real Madrid Club de Fútbol v. UEFA[1] (the “Chant Award”) and CAS 2025/A/11723 Real Madrid C.F. v. UEFA[2] (the “Salute Award”), were notified within weeks of each other and merit a joint analysis.

These awards provide guidance on three practical questions:

• how football’s anti-discrimination regime operates when liability arises regardless of fault,
• whether CAS panels are willing to interfere with disciplinary decisions; and
• what clubs and federations can do to mitigate sanctions once liability has been established.

These questions are particularly relevant as the FIFA World Cup 26TM has just concluded, and national associations may face disciplinary proceedings arising from supporter misconduct during the event. During this competition, national federations are subject to the FIFA Disciplinary Code - which mirrors the same core principles of UEFA’s framework - including FIFA’s strict approach to supporter misconduct. Accordingly, the issues examined here extend well beyond the context of club competitions and are equally relevant in the World Cup arena.

This article looks at:

• Strict Liability in Football Law: Supporter Misconduct A Key Distinction
• Facts of the Real Madrid Awards: Strict Liability in its purest form
  • The Nazi Salute Award: an isolated act
  • The Chant Award: contested liability
• If liability is inevitable, what can clubs actually do?
  • Mitigating Factors: What is recognised?
  • Financial standing
• Powers of Review of a CAS panel: How De Novo is "De Novo"?
• Comparing the UEFA incidents to the framework at The FIFA World Cup 26™
  • Applicable Framework
  • Sanctions and the three-step protocol
  • Prevention as mitigation: Article 15(7)
  • Procedure and forum
  • Applying the FIFA framework: two worked examples
• Practical Lessons for National Federations & Football Clubs
  • Isolated incidents do not create immunity
  • Swift internal reaction may reduce sanctions, but it does not prevent liability
  • Is financial capacity relevant to proportionality?
• Conclusion

[1]Part 1 (see here[2]) of this series outlined a working definition of safeguarding in esports and identified three interconnected categories of harm: sexual abuse and harassment, cyberbullying, and physical and mental health problems. It also detailed the range of stakeholders within the ecosystem.

Part 2 of this series examines the practical responses of two of those stakeholders — video game publishers and esports federations — and considers whether their self-regulatory initiatives are sufficient to address those harms. Part 3 (to be published shortly) examines the safeguarding initiatives of online platform providers Twitch and YouTube, before setting out overarching recommendations on how the esports ecosystem might develop a more unified approach to safeguarding across all stakeholder groups.

• Initiatives by Video Game Publishers
• Is There A Common Standard for “Safeguarding in Esports and Video Gaming”?
• Electronic Arts (EA)
• Ubisoft
• Riot Games
  • Self-Regulatory Framework
  • Behavioural Enforcement Mechanisms
  • New Dispute Resolution by Riot Games
• Esports Federations
  • International Esports Federation
    • Practical Safeguarding Initiatives
  • Global Esports Federation
    • Practical Safeguarding Initiatives
  • Swiss Esports Federation
  • British Esports Federation
    • Coaching and Education Standards
    • International Safeguards for Children in Esports