Co-streaming is co-llaborative

Co-streaming is a growing strategy for brands to tap creator communities. But in order for it to be used, and used well, it has to remain collaborative.

ESL, one of the world's largest esports tournament organizers, recently published its 2026 co-streaming guidelines.¹ Guidelines that, on the surface, sound reasonable. The deeper you read, the more they reveal about how brands still misunderstand what makes creator partnerships actually work.

The opening paragraph frames the whole thing strangely. It doesn't position co-streaming as an opportunity for creators. It positions them as infrastructure for protecting ESL’s sponsor relationships. "By helping us protect these partnerships, you are actively protecting the ecosystem itself." That might be true, but this is supposed to be a harmonious relationship between the brand and creator, not an obligation (unless this is a sponsored contract, but it’s not).

It really does set the tone for the rest of the guidelines. Buckle up.

Get the lowdown

Sections one and two are reasonable. Professionalism standards, moderation requirements, approved platforms, all fair. No notes. The requirement to use ESL's official feed rather than grabbing the public broadcast directly is more friction than strictly necessary, but understandable. Requiring the official tournament name in your stream title starts to feel like a sponsorship deliverable more than a guideline (this is where it begins), but still manageable.

Section three is where this shifts into obligation territory. Once you start a co-stream, you're committed until the trophy ceremony. No switching away during desk segments or interviews. The broadcast audio must remain audible at all times, including during player interviews (which are often less interesting than streams in the I'm Only Sleeping category).

Then there’s the visual requirements. Your webcam must occupy 5% or less of the screen during gameplay and cannot cover any sponsor logo placements or in-game HUD elements. Looking at ESL's own example image, this leaves exactly one viable spot on screen for the creator's face. One.

Twitch learned a version of this lesson in 2023 when they tried to restrict how creators could display sponsor logos on screen. The backlash was immediate. They walked it back within 24 hours and called their own guidelines "bad for you and bad for Twitch."² It was a weird move then and, with influencers being more critical than ever to marketing strategy, it's just as weird now.

Section five is where I'd encourage anyone considering signing this to stop and read carefully.

Creators cannot promote personal sponsors at any point during the broadcast. The blocked categories include energy drinks, peripherals, chairs, and gaming platforms. That covers… checks notes the majority of long-term brand partnerships in the gaming ecosystem. We're now talking about a negative financial impact for the creator in order to "officially" co-stream esports tournaments. I’m sure the benefits of this relationship for the creator will be laid out soon right?

On top of that, creators must keep ten separate ESL sponsor placements fully visible and unobstructed at all times. In-game logo rotations, lower thirds, the L-frame, audio cues, dedicated analyst segments. This literally leaves creators to either strip their channel of any personality and custom assets, or spend the entire broadcast constantly shuffling their layout around elements they don't control. Neither of those is a realistic live production workflow.

We're so far removed from this being a mutually beneficial relationship. The creator is sacrificing their brand, personality, and revenue for this "benefit." At a time when creators are already experiencing sponsorship struggles, this is asking an awful lot. If you're looking for the value prop for creators, there isn't one described. They're just asked to submit an application to be granted the right to co-stream.

Section seven contains a data sharing requirement and a likeness license. The data sharing is fine (after all, this is entirely about generating bigger numbers to impress advertisers). The likeness clause is absolutely cause for concern.

Perpetual means forever. Royalty-free means no additional compensation, ever. In an era where likeness rights are becoming increasingly complicated thanks to AI-generated content, giving away perpetual rights is not something to take lightly. 

I would consult a lawyer. I personally would not agree to this. Creators, you always hold bargaining power. Never be afraid to negotiate terms - on any type of deal, paid or unpaid. It is possible and reasonable to put term limits on granting rights.

Here's what ESL is missing, and it's what happens when brands miss the nuances of creator marketing and why creators are beneficial to work with.

When you work with a creator, you're not solely buying their audience. You're buying the creator's ability to make engaging content for that audience that effectively sells the product. You're buying their ability to influence. And that influence only works for the brand if it leans on an authentic, creator-led experience.

Co-stream audiences make an active choice. If they want to watch the official stream with no interruptions, they can do that. But the beauty of livestreaming is being able to watch alongside your favorite creator. The audience is choosing to watch the creator and not the official broadcast for a reason. They're there to watch alongside a community, to get their favorite creator's reactions and commentary. Creators will often speak over the broadcast, muting or lowering it, because they have things they want to say about what's happening. The audience is there for that person's opinion. No one wants an inauthentic or unnatural experience, and a ruleset that strips away the personality, the spontaneity, and the creator's own sponsor relationships is destined to feel stale and be ineffective.

Let's look at the data. Co-stream viewers demonstrate chat engagement rates above 20%, compared to 6-8% on official channels.³ At PGL's Copenhagen Major, 82% of co-stream viewers participated in chat, versus 18% on the official broadcast.⁴ At Valorant Champions 2025, co-streamers accounted for 58.4% of total hours watched.⁵ Co-streaming isn't a supplemental distribution channel anymore. It's where the audience is, and brands must reach across to meet creators in their wheelhouse.

When you over-restrict the co-streaming experience, you don't protect brand integrations. You diminish it. Disengaged viewers don't absorb sponsor messaging. Inauthentic broadcasts don't build the trust that makes influencer marketing worth paying for in the first place.

When you invite creators into a co-streaming partnership, you're stepping into their territory. That means respecting their channel, their community, and their business, including the sponsors they've built relationships with. They deserve to put food on the table too. The more requirements you stack on top of the experience, the less authentic it becomes. And authenticity is the only reason that audience showed up in the first place. Rules that forget that don't protect the ecosystem. They just make it smaller.