(Editor’s Note: The following is shared from the latest issue of Esports and the Law, a publication for which the author serves as academic editor.)
By Jeffrey Levine, JD, PhD – Associate Clinical Professor, Department of Sport Business Esport
Business Minor Lead, Drexel University
The League of Legends Pro League’s (LPL) lifetime ban of Yang “naiyou” Zi-Jian is one of the more significant recent competitive-integrity sanctions in professional esports. Naiyou, a jungler for Top Esports (TES), was banned after an investigation into his performance during TES’s playoff loss to Weibo Gaming in March 2026. According to reporting on the LPL’s ruling, the league found that Naiyou committed significant competitive-integrity violations that directly or indirectly affected competitive fairness (Chen, 2026; Phalip, 2026). This resulted in a lifetime ban from professional and semi-professional competitions organized by Tencent, Tencent Esports, TJ Sports, or Riot Games worldwide (Stewart, 2026). TJ Sports is the Riot/Tencent-affiliated operator of China’s League of Legends esports ecosystem, including the LPL. TES also terminated his contract, ended cooperation with him, withheld outstanding salary and prize money, and reserved the right to pursue damages for breach of contract and related financial losses (Chen, 2026).
The case matters because, like all traditional sports, professional esports depend on a simple but essential promise: the match is real, the outcome is not predetermined, and the players are genuinely trying to win. Fans do not need to understand every tactical choice or item purchase to understand that basic bargain. But when that promise is questioned, the damage extends beyond one player, one team, or one playoff series. It becomes a significant governance problem for the league that can also threaten the entire competitive ecosystem.
From Unusual Gameplay to Public Scrutiny
The controversy began after TES lost to Weibo Gaming in an LPL playoff elimination series. The best-of-five series went the full distance, meaning the teams were tied 2-2 before Weibo won the decisive fifth game. Naiyou was playing Skarner, a tank-style champion. For those unfamiliar with League of Legends, a tank’s basic role is to absorb damage, disrupt opponents, and help teammates survive key moments. To do that effectively, a tank usually buys defensive items that correspond to the kind of damage the opposing team is actually dealing during the match.
That is where the public scrutiny began. Weibo’s major threat in the decisive game was from a marksman champion named Jinx, who primarily deals physical damage. In that situation, a defensive player would usually be expected to prioritize armor, which helps reduce physical damage. Instead, Naiyou reportedly purchased several magic-resistance components, which are designed to protect against magic-based attacks rather than the physical-damage threat that appeared to be driving Weibo’s advantage in the game (Xu, 2026). One poor in-game adjustment might simply be a mistake. But when a decision appears disconnected from the obvious competitive threat in a high-stakes match, it can invite deeper scrutiny.
A questionable item build does not, by itself, prove match-fixing. Players make bad decisions, misread games, and sometimes follow strategies that look poor in hindsight (Xu, 2026). Yet the unusual tactical decision, especially in a playoff elimination match, helps explain why the case drew attention.
The Investigation, LPL Ruling, and TES Response
What began as public scrutiny quickly became a formal integrity matter. TES opened an internal investigation into Naiyou’s unusual performance and reported the issue to LPL disciplinary officials. TES stated that the player was suspected of seriously violating club rules, professional ethics, and engaging in improper conduct affecting competitive fairness (Xu, 2026). Public attention increased further after TES head coach Chang “Poppy” Po-Hao reportedly made comments on stream suggesting that Naiyou had admitted to match-fixing games TES lost in the playoffs (Guimarães, 2026; Phalip, 2026; Stewart, 2026). However, Poppy later apologized and instructed the public to rely on the official investigation results (Guimarães, 2026; Phalip, 2026).
Naiyou then faced consequences at both the league and organizational level. LPL found, after its investigation, that Naiyou had committed multiple serious violations during the tournament that affected competitive fairness (Phalip, 2026). The penalty was severe: the player received a lifetime ban from professional and semi-professional competitions organized by Tencent, Tencent Esports, TJ Sports, or Riot Games globally, along with loss of eligibility for official honors (Chen, 2026; Phalip, 2026).
While the league sanction addressed Naiyou’s eligibility to compete, TES’s response addressed his relationship with the organization. The team terminated his contract, ended all cooperation with him, withheld outstanding wages, prize money, and benefits, and reserved the right to pursue legal action for breach of contract and financial losses (Chen, 2026; Phalip, 2026). The league addressed competitive eligibility pursuant to its governance authority. The team responded through its asserted contractual rights.
Why This Is Legally and Managerially Significant
The legal significance of the Naiyou case begins with understanding the difference between poor play and intentional manipulation. Professional players are allowed to make mistakes. They can choose the wrong strategy, have a bad game, or fail under pressure without fear of being subject to an integrity violation. The issue becomes far more serious when conduct is understood as intentional manipulation, meaning a player is not genuinely competing or is making decisions designed to affect the result or a specific part of the match. Riot’s Esports Global Code of Conduct prohibits match-fixing and manipulation of the course, result, or any other aspect of a match, including failing to give best efforts or spot-fixing (Riot Games, 2026a).
Leagues and tournament operators view match-fixing as an existential threat because it affects more than who wins and losses. It attacks the credibility of the competition itself. Fans watch because they believe the contest is genuine and that the players are trying to win. Sponsors associate their brands with a product that has competitive legitimacy. Publishers and leagues build their business models around the value of bona fide competition. Betting markets, where permitted, depend on the same assumption. Riot’s anti-match-fixing guidance makes this point directly, explaining that match-fixing damages trust, compromises competitive integrity, and can lead to severe consequences (Riot Games, 2026b). Competitive integrity is therefore part of esports’ business foundation. When that assumption is undermined, the value of the product is compromised.
Research on esports corruption draws a useful distinction between internal and external threats to competitive integrity. Internal threats originate with individual player conduct, including deliberate underperformance, spot-fixing, and outright match manipulation. External threats are generated by gambling markets that create independent financial incentives for corruption, whether those markets operate within formal regulatory frameworks or outside them (Holden et al., 2017). That distinction has direct bearing on the Naiyou case. The LPL’s ruling addresses the internal threat. The league’s stated intention to continue investigating external influences acknowledges that the conditions enabling the misconduct may extend beyond one player. A lifetime ban removes a player from competition. It does not, by itself, address the outside betting pressures or networks that may have contributed to the violation.
The case also illustrates the distinctive power concentration in publisher-led esports governance. In traditional sport, disciplinary authority is typically distributed across leagues, governing bodies, player unions, arbitration panels, and sometimes courts. In esports, the publisher often controls the game, the rulebook, the competition, and access to future official events simultaneously. Riot’s Competitive Operations library describes its Esports Global Code of Conduct as applicable to professional and semi-professional players, coaches, team owners, and representatives involved in Riot Games esports competitions (Riot Games, 2026c). A lifetime ban from Riot and Tencent competitions is therefore not removal from one team or one tournament. In practical terms, it can end a player’s professional career in that title’s official ecosystem.
This concentration of authority gives leagues the ability to act quickly and decisively when integrity is at stake. Public reporting on the Naiyou decision does not identify an independent appeals process, neutral arbitration mechanism, or union grievance procedure operating at arm’s length from the publisher to review whether a career-ending sanction was produced by a sound process. The more severe the punishment, the more that absence matters. Players, teams, sponsors, and fans need to trust not only the outcome but the institutional process that generated it. The league’s response also suggested that integrity failures are not only player problems, as TES was reportedly warned for shortcomings in day-to-day player management despite reporting the issue and cooperating (Chen, 2026). This concern is not unique to the LPL. It reflects a broader tension in publisher-led esports governance, where the same entity may control the game, the competition, and the disciplinary approach (Riedl & Verschuuren, 2025).
Organizational Accountability Before the Incident
Integrity systems cannot be designed around incidents that have already become public. By the time an investigation is formalized, an organization’s ability to control the outcome has largely evaporated. What teams can control is the infrastructure they build before problems surface: clear education on what constitutes prohibited conduct, reporting channels through which players can disclose solicitations from bettors without fear of retaliation, and monitoring processes capable of identifying unusual behavior before it becomes a pattern. Riot’s anti-match-fixing structured framework identifies regulations and processes, prevention and education, deterrence and enforcement, and transparency and communication as the structural components of integrity protection (Riot Games, 2026b). Implementing those principles is an operational commitment to protecting competitive integrity, not a public relations exercise. Rules and sanctions matter, but they are not enough if teams do not train players, monitor risks, and create safe ways to report suspicious approaches (Riedl & Verschuuren, 2025). Reactive governance also carries regulatory risk. When leagues address integrity problems only after public scandal, they may invite outside scrutiny from regulators who are less familiar with the technical realities of esports (Holden et al., 2017).
This is especially important in lower-tier and developmental ecosystems. Players may be younger, less financially secure, and less prepared for approaches from betting actors. Chen reported, based on a source familiar with the matter, that Naiyou had allegedly been involved in prior match-fixing in China’s League of Legends Development League and that bookmakers later used that history as leverage (Chen, 2026). If accurate, the allegation points to a difficult integrity problem for esports. A player’s exposure to match-fixing or betting-related pressure may begin in lower-tier competition, but the consequences can follow that player into the professional ranks. Integrity education that begins only once a player reaches the top tier may already be too late.
Teams also need disciplined communication protocols. During an integrity investigation, coaches, players, and staff should avoid offering informal explanations on streams or social media. Public comments can confuse the process, damage reputations, and make the investigation appear less controlled. Teams need one official voice until the process is complete.
Conclusion
The commercial case for professional esports rests on a premise that fans grasp intuitively even if they cannot articulate it: the players are trying to win. When that premise is credibly contested, the legitimacy of the competition becomes uncertain in ways that disciplinary sanctions can address only partially. Banning Naiyou removes him from competition. It does not fully restore the trust his conduct put at risk, nor does it answer whether stronger integrity systems might have made the violation less likely in the first place.
The more durable governance question is whether professional esports leagues are building systems capable of catching problems before they become public scandals, or relying on after-the-fact discipline to do work that prevention should be doing. A high-profile ban demonstrates enforcement capacity. It does not demonstrate the infrastructure that makes enforcement less frequently necessary. A reactive enforcement posture also risks drawing the attention of governments and legislators who lack technical expertise in esports and who may regulate the industry on terms it did not anticipate (Holden et al., 2017). Prevention is not only better governance. It is the clearest way for esports to protect the trust on which its competitive product depends.
References
Chen, H. (2026, March 27). TJ Sports issues lifetime ban to TES player Yang “Naiyou” Zijian. The Esports Advocate. https://esportsadvocate.net/2026/03/tj-sports-issues-lifetime-ban-to-tes-player-yang-naiyou-zijian/
Guimarães, S. (2026, March 7). “He match-fixed every game TES lost in Playoffs,” says head coach Poppy about naiyou. Esports.gg. https://esports.gg/news/league-of-legends/tes-naiyou-match-fixing-investigation/
Holden, J. T., Rodenberg, R. M., & Kaburakis, A. (2017). Esports corruption: Gambling, doping, and global governance. Maryland Journal of International Law, 32(1), 236–273. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil/vol32/iss1/10/
Phalip, C. (2026, March 27). LPL issues lifetime ban to naiyou following match-fixing case at Top Esports. Sheep Esports. https://www.sheepesports.com/en/all/articles/lpl-issues-lifetime-ban-to-naiyou-following-match-fixing-case-at-top-esports/en
Riedl, E., & Verschuuren, P. (2025). A systematic literature review of esports integrity. The International Sports Law Journal, 25, 99–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-025-00295-y
Riot Games. (2026a, January 9). Esports Global Code of Conduct (2026). Riot Games Competitive Operations. https://cdn.sanity.io/files/dsfx7636/news_live/1e8a0de5885cfd0a0923985637fdabd0c874b7ff.pdf
Riot Games. (2026b). Anti-match-fixing: Protecting Riot Games’ esports ecosystem through fair play and integrity. Riot Games Competitive Operations. https://competitiveops.riotgames.com/anti-match-fixing
Riot Games. (2026c). The library. Riot Games Competitive Operations. https://competitiveops.riotgames.com/en-US/library
Stewart, J. (2026, Mar. 27). LPL Jungler Naiyou Permanently Banned and Replaced By Tian. Insider Gaming. https://insider-gaming.com/lpl-jungler-naiyou-permanently-banned-and-replaced-by-tian/
Xu, D. (2026, March 6). Top Esports LPL player under investigation for integrity concerns. Esports Insider. https://esportsinsider.com/2026/03/top-esports-lpl-player-under-investigation
