Tfue’s controversial FaZe Clan contract reportedly leaked amid legal battle

The contract which sparked one of the most-talked about controversies in esports, leading to Tfue suing FaZe Clan, has reportedly been leaked by a ‘non-FaZe member’, amid litigation over its validity.

Having joined FaZe Clan in April 2018, Tfue rose to stardom on Twitch and YouTube thanks to his Fortnite Battle Royale skills, as well as representing the organization at major tournaments.

On May 20, Tfue and his team shocked the esports and gaming community when it was revealed that he was suing the organization over what he called an “oppressive” contract.

That contract was private, save for a few details which FaZe Clan chose to disclose in response to the allegations, which included the claim that they took up to 80% of Tenney’s earnings.

• Read More: Cloak shows support for Tfue amid FaZe lawsuit and contract drama

FaZe co-owner Banks admitted that while it is stipulated that FaZe will take 80% of sponsorship deals which they secure for Tfue, that clause had never been acted upon, and that they had taken only 20% of two deals, at a total of $60,000, throughout Tfue’s entire time with the organization.

Tfue responded in a short video, where he demanded that the contract be ‘released’ to allow for more informed public opinion, to which Banks said he would if approved. However, a leak acquired by TheBlast may have gotten the contract out ahead of Banks.

A breakdown of revenue split from the leaked contract – FaZe claims they never acted upon these clauses.

The contract appears to support Tfue’s claim that FaZe Clan take 80% of sponsorship deals, when the deal is brought to the ‘gamer’ by the organization – however FaZe say they never took this money.

FaZe Clan’s ‘Matching Right’

The contract also appears to back up Tfue’s claim that he was restricted in his options to join other organizations, as any offers made to him by another team had to be brought to FaZe Clan’s attention:

Gamer shall be obligated to provide the Offer to Company and the identity of the party providing the Offer, and Company shall have the right to match such Offer during a period of fifteen (15) business days following Company’s actual receipt of the Offer (the “Matching Right”). 

It also states that if Tfue was made an offer within three months of the contract ending, FaZe must also be informed, and if they chose to match the offer, their exclusivity right would return.

The ‘exclusivity and matching right’ detailed in the leaked contract.

The contract also states that ‘in-game sticker money’ – which will refer mainly to use of his ‘creator code’ – is split 50/50, and that income generated from cash prizes are to be split 80% to Tfue, and 20% to FaZe Clan.

FaZe, specifically Banks, denied taking this money, but if the leaked contract is accurate, it leaves Tfue in a perilous position where, without warning FaZe Clan could start demanding the contractually stipulated splits.

Obligations upon termination

Another peculiar clause in the contract, under Obligations Upon Termination, states: “In the event of termination for a Gamer Material Breach, Gamer shall be prohibited from playing video games publically or professionally for a period of six months.”

You can read the contract in full below.

 

Blast sources believe the entire contract is invalid, for a handful of reasons. They argue that FaZe Clan is operating as a talent agency, despite not being licensed, and that the contract violates anti-competition laws. These non-compete regulations are stringent in California particularly.

Tfue’s attorney told The Blast “This is the most unfair contract I have ever seen in almost 30 years of practicing law.”

Update: Banks has responded following the contract leak, admitting that Tfue’s initial contract was “horrible”, but labelled him a “selfish asshole” over the legal move against FaZe.

DramaAlert host and YouTuber Daniel ‘KEEMSTAR’ Keem explains that according to Banks, the organization had made efforts to rectify the issues and offered Tfue a better contract, which was refused.

Last updated 12:02 PM EST, May 23.