The new Major revenue distribution system has already managed to create tension inside several organizations. After Valve’s changes, players suddenly began receiving 10% of Major revenue directly, and that is exactly what triggered the conflict: clubs consider this money theirs, while the esports players themselves see it as personal income.
Cologne Major 2026
The problem emerged because the new payout model sharply changed the familiar logic of distributing money from stickers, souvenirs, and the Viewer Pass. If previously a significant part of that income was associated first and foremost with clubs, players now have a separate direct share. And that change, instead of becoming a calm update to the system, has turned into a new point of dispute between organizations and rosters.
read more
Players suddenly received a new separate share
The main trigger of this story is the 10% of all Major revenue that Valve now transfers directly to players. For the players themselves, this looks like a new, clearly выделенная personal payout.
That is why many people inside the scene view this money not as a bonus from the club, but as separate income that the player receives directly from the developer.
Clubs believe this is still their money
But from the organizations’ side, the logic is completely different. Some clubs believe that this money effectively belonged to them before, because it was tied to the Viewer Pass, souvenirs, and part of the team payouts.
So for clubs, the problem is not the payout itself, but the fact that Valve simply redirected an already familiar revenue stream in a different way. And if previously this money was viewed as part of the club’s Major monetization, organizations do not want to accept that it has suddenly become “personal” money for players.
Some teams are already demanding those 10% back
The most interesting part is that this story has already gone beyond theoretical arguments. According to the available information, some organizations are already demanding that their players return the received 10%, referring to the current terms of their contracts.
So the conflict is not about the abstract question of “who likes what more,” but about very specific money. And this is where the ugliest part begins: if the contract wording is old, but the payout system is already new, each side starts interpreting the situation in its own favor.
Players see this as personal income
The players’ position is also quite understandable. If Valve specifically allocates each player’s share and transfers it directly, then to them it looks like personal earnings, not club funds.
That is why many lineups are unlikely to want to simply hand this money back to the organization. From their point of view, this is not a “club bonus” that accidentally arrived in the wrong account, but a new format of individual compensation.
Next could come lawsuits and tougher contracts
The worst part for the scene is that this may be only the beginning. A 100 Thieves manager has already predicted that the industry may next face legal proceedings, and that the next step will be new contracts in which clubs will try to define much more strictly who exactly owns sticker revenue.
In other words, Valve did not just change the payout model — they effectively opened a new legal front between organizations and players. And conflicts like these almost always end with one side trying to lock its own advantage into new agreements in advance.
read more
For the scene, this could become a long-term problem
In the short term, the story looks like an internal financial conflict. But in the longer term, it is already a question for the entire ecosystem. If major clubs begin massively revising terms related to stickers and Major payouts, then the new system will quickly hit the contract market.
In that case, the current 10% may turn out not to be a “victory for players,” but only a short transition phase before organizations take that advantage back through new legal wording.
