- Lack of Support from Blizzard: Adam Adamou criticized Blizzard’s hesitant approach and insufficient investment in Overwatch esports, which he believes hinders the game’s potential to compete with top-tier titles like League of Legends and Counter-Strike.
- Unattractive Team Partner Program: The revenue-sharing model for in-game cosmetics lacks transparency and financial incentive, making it difficult for teams like Toronto Defiant to justify participation.
- Future of Overwatch Esports: Adamou emphasized that significant investment and clearer revenue guidelines are essential for Overwatch to thrive, arguing that teams should not bear the financial risks of supporting a trillion-dollar company.
The former owner of the Toronto Defiant Overwatch 2 team has revealed why the organization will not return to the game’s esports scene, criticizing Blizzard’s management and their handling of the game’s competitive potential. Despite the Defiant’s strong performance in 2024, which included four first-place finishes and a third-place standing in the World Finals, the decision was made to step away from the Overwatch World Championship Series (OWCS). The owner, Adam Adamou, expressed frustration over what he sees as Blizzard’s cautious and underwhelming support for esports, which he believes has stifled Overwatch’s potential to be a top-tier competitive game.
Adamou explained that Toronto Defiant declined to join Blizzard’s new Team Partner Program for the OWCS, which was designed to share revenue from in-game cosmetics with participating teams. According to him, cosmetics revenue is crucial for esports organizations like Toronto Defiant to remain profitable, as sponsorships often only cover the broader operational costs. However, Adamou argued that the program lacks sufficient financial incentives and transparency, making it an unattractive option for the team. He also noted that the inability to deliver adequate value to sponsors further contributed to the decision to leave.
Another major factor was the perceived slow pace of Blizzard’s investment in the competitive ecosystem. Adamou compared Blizzard’s approach to that of Riot Games and Activision, which he believes have demonstrated greater commitment to ensuring their esports ecosystems are sustainable for teams and partners. He described Blizzard’s tentative steps as a burden on teams, claiming they are effectively subsidizing the company’s indecision. This lack of commitment, according to Adamou, is preventing Overwatch from achieving its potential as a premier esport alongside games like League of Legends and Counter-Strike.
For Adamou, the path forward is clear: Blizzard must increase its investment in Overwatch esports and provide clearer guidelines and transparency regarding revenue-sharing programs. He criticized the current lack of clarity in the Team Partner Program, questioning the scale of revenue being shared among teams. Without significant changes, Adamou does not see a viable financial model for teams in Overwatch esports, which relies heavily on sponsor support. He emphasized that it should not fall on teams to shoulder the risks for a trillion-dollar organization like Blizzard.
While Adamou acknowledges that the return of team skins and the introduction of the revenue-sharing program are positive steps, he remains skeptical about Blizzard’s long-term commitment. For Toronto Defiant to consider a return in 2026, the organization would need assurance of greater investment and support from Blizzard. Without these changes, Adamou believes the potential of Overwatch esports will remain underutilized, leaving teams to bear the costs of Blizzard’s cautious strategy.
