Sideshow: "If you wanted to pay all [tier two VALORANT players] a minimum salary, it would cost you $43 million"

The state of VALORANT’s tier two competitive scene has come under heavy discussion following a recent exposé by former pro player and Shopify Rebellion Gold general manager Sean "seangares" Gares, which alleged match-fixing at that level of play. The revelations have reignited concern over the scene’s stability and prompted renewed calls from players and industry figures for greater financial support and structural reform.

The true cost of supporting Tier Two

In a recent episode of the Plat Chat podcast, host Josh “Sideshow” Wilkinson addressed the financial reality of sustaining the tier two ecosystem. As the community debates potential solutions, Sideshow offered insight into what it would actually cost to support the current player base through standardized salaries.

“In tier two, you have 855 players worldwide—and I don’t even think that’s including China,” Sideshow said. “If you wanted to pay all [of those players] a minimum salary of $50,000, it would cost you $43 million. That’s a huge amount of extra money that would have to come into the scene for that to make sense.”

Community Backlash and Exploring Riot’s Role

This financial gap has become a flashpoint in ongoing conversations about the health of the tier two scene. Former professional player and popular content creator Tyson "TenZ" Ngo was among those who criticized Riot Games’ handling of the ecosystem. He claimed that Riot “fundamentally killed” tier two when it introduced the VCT franchising system without offering hands-on support for the Challengers League or financial incentives for organizations willing to compete outside of the top-tier.

Many within the community view tier two as an essential part of VALORANT’s ecosystem—a proving ground where rising talent can develop and showcase their talent before moving into the VCT. However, its limited viewership make it difficult to justify large-scale investment. Compared to the main VCT circuit, tier two tournaments attract significantly smaller audiences, meaning organizations often operate at a loss if they commit resources to a Challengers roster.

Granted, it’s no secret that owning and operating an esports team is rarely profitable, with many organizations running at a loss. Following the recent “esports winter” — a period marked by budget cuts, mergers, and team exits — it has become increasingly clear just how limited the revenue potential is within the industry, especially for teams relying solely on competitive esports.

Possible solutions?

This tug-of-war between sustainability and talent development has led to an ongoing debate about how the scene should evolve. Some community members have suggested structural changes, including one popular idea to allow more than two teams per year to be promoted into the VCT tier one league, while increasing the incentives for organizations to invest in the lower levels of competition. Supporters of this approach argue that a clearer path to tier one could renew hope for players and teams, ultimately encouraging more long-term investment in tier two. In turn, that could reduce the financial desperation that creates conditions for unethical behavior like match-fixing.

The community’s calls for change continue to grow louder. The future of VALORANT’s tier two scene may depend not only on financial input but also on how the competitive structure can adapt to better support the ecosystem as a whole. If you want to stay updated on all news around the VCT, stay locked in with THESPIKE.GG.