VTV3 speaks out on Esports law and organizational system after penalties for Himass and TanVuu

VTV3, Vietnam's national television station, has officially spoken out about the case of two Vietnamese PUBG players, Himass and TanVuu, being banned by Krafton, the game publisher, from all global PUBG tournaments. The incident goes beyond an individual penalty and raises major questions about Esports law and the tournament organization system, especially the role of the publisher in simultaneously making rules, organizing tournaments, and issuing penalties. In the context of Vietnam's rapidly growing Esports scene, this case is seen as a test for the transparency and fairness of the management system. According to VTV3, the penalty was announced by Krafton after undisclosed violations. Both players Himass and TanVuu were banned from all global PUBG tournaments, the harshest penalty applicable to a professional player short of a lifetime ban. However, neither Krafton nor the tournament organizers disclosed which specific rule the two players violated, nor provided concrete evidence. This has led the public and VTV3 to question the transparency of the handling process. In its broadcast, VTV3 stated: "We need to know exactly what they violated and how the process was conducted." The national broadcaster did not judge who was right or wrong but demanded public disclosure of the process, especially when the penalty applies to all global tournaments. VTV3 also raised the question of whether the penalty is proportionate to a showmatch tournament, where the incident allegedly occurred. Showmatches are exhibition events, typically less competitive than official tournaments, yet the penalty applies globally. This raises concerns about inconsistency in applying rules across different tournament tiers. It is known that the managing teams of Himass and TanVuu have filed appeals with Krafton. Meanwhile, the Vietnamese fan community has signed a petition with over 4.1 million signatures demanding justice for the two players. This number demonstrates the strength of the Vietnamese Esports community and the level of public interest in the case. Several famous streamers such as Độ Mixi and PewPew have also spoken out, expressing outrage and calling for transparency. It is reported that one player cried and deleted the game out of frustration with the publisher's handling. This incident has exposed a structural issue in Esports: the absence of an independent federation as in traditional sports. In football, FIFA or UEFA are independent organizations that set rules and handle violations, separate from clubs and sponsors. In Esports, publishers like Krafton hold all three roles: making rules, organizing tournaments, and issuing penalties. This creates a concentration of power, easily leading to disputes about fairness whenever controversial incidents arise. VTV3 emphasized that this case is a lesson for the Vietnamese Esports community about the importance of transparency and clear procedures. The involvement of VTV3, a national broadcaster, shows growing public interest in Esports. Additionally, Vietnam's first Esports medal at the ASIAD indicates the region's rising status, but the management system has not kept pace. This imbalance creates institutional risks. Without an independent and transparent dispute resolution mechanism, similar cases may continue to occur, damaging fan trust and the sustainable development of Esports. Some opinions suggest that the community is rushing to conclude the two players are innocent when the facts of the violation remain undisclosed. The 4.1 million signatures may indicate fan power, but could also be an emotional "bubble" if evidence later shows the penalty was justified. However, the core demand of VTV3 and the community is transparency, not outright denial of the penalty. This is a legitimate procedural demand, as in any legal system, public disclosure of charges and trial procedures is a fundamental principle to ensure fairness. The case also raises questions about the relationship between Vietnam and South Korea in PUBG. Some say it is part of a "Vietnam-Korea drama," with streamers and fans from both countries reacting differently. However, caution is needed not to turn a governance issue into a regional confrontation, as that could damage the image of Vietnamese Esports internationally. This requires calm and objective analysis from all parties. The impact of the case could push for an independent arbitration mechanism in Vietnamese Esports. It also raises the question of whether publishers should disclose violation handling processes and ensure that showmatch tournaments also have clear rulebooks. If the penalty is upheld without adequate explanation, Krafton's reputation in the Vietnamese market could be affected. Conversely, if the publisher discloses the violation details and process, it could appease public opinion and set a precedent for similar cases. As Esports gains recognition as an official sport, with national participation at ASIAD and the Olympics, building a transparent and fair governance system is a prerequisite for sustainable development. The case of Himass and TanVuu, with VTV3 speaking out, is a reminder that Esports is growing rapidly in scale and public interest, but governance and transparency still have many shortcomings. Building a fair competitive environment where rules are applied consistently and transparently at all tournament levels is a prerequisite for Vietnamese Esports to go further on the international stage. The lesson from this case is not only for PUBG but for the entire Esports industry.