New developments arose in a dispute involving old and current NIP players and stickers for the 2020 Rio Major capsule.
About two months ago, Dexterto’s Richard Lewis reported that Swedish esports outfit Ninjas in pajamas was in dispute over stickers on the 2020 Rio Major capsule. If you don’t follow CS:GO, these stickers are sold in-game and the proceeds are used to supplement the prize pool of the Valve-sponsored Major. There are two types of stickers, team stickers and individual player stickers. While players get 100% of individual stickers, they get about 85% of team stickers.
In the case of the 2020 Rio Major, which was canceled due to COVID, the additional income for players was estimated to be around $200,000 – $300,000, which other teams reportedly paid to their players . However as Lewis reported in May, NIP claimed that they were not obligated to pay this money to their players as the tournament was canceled with no player stickers but only teammates, and Valve mentioned in a blog post. The stickers were intended to help the teams financially during some of the toughest times.
What’s the situation now?
It was reported at the time that even though players such as Fredrik ‘REZ’ Sterner, Hamps ‘Hamps’ Poser and Nicolas ‘Plopski’ González Zamora were influenced by the NIP’s decision, the current players were not too happy to go public as they were still Along with were former NIP member Tim ‘Nauk’ Jonasson, the driving force behind the investigation by the organizations WESA (World Esports Association) and (CSPPA) Counter-Strike Professional Players Association.
In a new article by Richard Lewis, the reporter reports that CSPPA reached out to several Challenger and Legends stage participants at the 2020 Rio Major and learned that all of their players were paid for stickers with the exception of the NIP.
The CSPPA also spoke to Valve about their blog post and their intent on how the money from this particular set of stickers was to be divided between players and organizations. According to Lewis’ source, Valve said that their blog post was “just a blog post and was not intended to be a contract or legal document in any shape or form.”
When the CSPPA reached out to the organization with this information and told them that the stickers should go to the players, as per their contracts, they did not receive a positive response. Lewis was quoted as saying, “… in no uncertain terms that [NIP] won’t be listening [CSPPA’s] recommendations. ,
This is not the first time that the NIP was in conflict with its former players due to contractual or financial reasons. Despite the fact that the CSPPA cannot compel the NIP to actually pay its players, as they are not a legal association, it must be recognized that their public image continues to be affected. And perhaps they should also consider that players’ legal action is always a choice, whether or not they choose to exercise this option remains to be seen.
