Sports Law 2026 Comparisons

Doping is not a criminal offence in the Philippines. However, the use of WADA-designated “Substances of Abuse” is a criminal offence. The possession, use, sale, and trafficking of cocaine, heroin, methylenedioxymethamphetamine, and tetrahydrocannabinol (cannabis/marijuana) are prohibited under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of the Philippines. On a related matter, doping could be considered prohibited under Presidential Decree No 483, which criminalises any fraudulent, deceitful, unfair or dishonest means, method, or practice employed to influence the result of any sports contest – as doping could be interpreted as such a dishonest means or method.

The National Anti-Doping Organisation in the Philippines is the Philippine National Anti-Doping Organization (PHI-NADO), which is accredited by WADA. The purpose of PHI-NADO is to implement the WADA Code and promote awareness of anti-doping, which it does through educational programmes and co-ordinating with the local national sports associations (NSAs). The Philippine Olympic Committee and the NSAs are responsible for implementing anti-doping measures in their respective sports.

Sports leagues are expected to impose punishments for doping offences, but these are difficult to verify, as leagues and sports associations generally do not publish their internal rules or codes of conduct.

One noteworthy anti-doping case involved Olympic weightlifter Vanessa Sarno, who received a two-year ban making her ineligible to compete in the 2025 South-East Asian Games, the 2026 Asian Games, and the 2026 Asian Weightlifting Championships.

Presidential Decree No 483 (PD 483) criminalises game-fixing, match-fixing, point-shaving, and game machination in the Philippines. These offences are punishable with imprisonment for a period of up to six years. The sports governing bodies or the NSAs deal with integrity issues through their own internal disciplinary mechanisms and sanctions, without any prejudice to criminal prosecution by the state under PD 483. The Games and Amusements Board (GAB) is also tasked to investigate game-fixing in professional sports and mete out sanctions against erring players and coaches.

In taking additional steps to deal with integrity offences, sports governing bodies and leagues have been reported to engage international independent investigation firms to conduct in-depth investigations of match-fixing with the help of local police.

Recent cases involve alleged game-fixing by players of a collegiate basketball team in 2019 and players in a professional basketball tournament in 2021. After investigation, the GAB revoked the professional basketball licences of the players involved in the 2021 incident.

Sports betting is legal in the Philippines, as long as the sports betting activity or operation is registered with the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). Established by Presidential Decree No 1869, as amended by Republic Act No 9487, PAGCOR is a government-owned and controlled corporation which regulates gambling and sports betting. Would-be sports betting operators must secure a PAGCOR-licence before starting their activities. Those who operate without a licence face sanctions and penalties.

The sports governing bodies and the NSAs typically follow the betting-related rules and guidelines of their respective international federations as regards betting-related offences of athletes. There is no public information on whether these NSAs have shared information with betting operators to protect the integrity of their respective sports.

At the time of writing, there have not been any noteworthy betting cases in sports involving athletes and their sports governing body.

The sports governing bodies or the national sports associations have their own respective internal mechanisms and procedures for disciplinary proceedings against their athletes. The rules and guidelines governing these internal procedures are often difficult to secure, even by the athletes facing disciplinary sanctions themselves. However, as a minimum requirement by law, due process must be afforded the athlete in the form of a written notice and the chance to be heard. Unfortunately, there have been cases where an athlete has been penalised even without the benefit of a notice and a chance to be heard.

Notable sports-related commercial rights include the usual rights under the Intellectual Property Code such as trade mark and copyright. On the tax side, athletes have a right to tax exemption for any prizes and awards they win in local and international sports tournaments sanctioned by their respective sports organisations. National athletes are also granted commercial benefits in the form of 20% discounts on purchases of food, sports equipment, and medicine. This 20% discount extends to lodging and transportation expenses.

Rights-holders and event organisers also have commercial rights over merchandising and ticketing profits. To protect rights-holders from the proliferation of counterfeit merchandise and the unauthorised use of marks, the Intellectual Property Code and local ordinances provide remedies ranging from criminal conviction to immediate forfeiture of goods. While there is no national law that addresses and punishes ticket touting and scalping, cities that regularly host sports events have their own local ordinances that criminalise ticket touting and scalping. These ordinances were used to great effect during the FIBA 2023 Basketball World Cup to combat the illegal sale of tickets.

One major way sponsors use sport is to own a team in a professional league, such as the Philippine Basketball Association (PBA) and the Premier Volleyball League (PVL), which operate under franchise system. For example, teams in the PBA include the Rain or Shine Elastopainters, named after a brand of paint, and the Barangay Ginebra San Miguel, named after a brand of gin. In the PVL, there are teams named after a chocolate snack, Choco Mucho Flying Titans, and after a media company, Cignal HD Spikers. Brands, therefore, gain exposure through team names, logo exposure in arenas, and logo placement on jerseys.

Companies, both those that own teams in professional leagues and those that do not, use athletes as models in print advertising and as influencers. For example, former professional basketball player Chris Tiu has been posed for skincare adverts, and current professional player Kiefer Ravena is the brand ambassador of the Jordan Brand in Asia. Professional athletes such as Alyssa Valdez and Jia Morado de Guzman and national athletes like Alex Eala, Maxine Esteban, and Sandro Reyes are examples of influencers who use Instagram to promote the brands they partner with.

Professional and collegiate athletes in the Philippines are treated as celebrities. Therefore, product launches, store openings, and other events will have athletes on their guest lists.

Sports rights-holders attract sponsor investments through airtime adverts during live events, in-arena signage and advertising, logo placement on pre-game and game uniforms, and sponsorship of key events, highlights, and promotions during the games.

Typical sponsorship contracts will include the terms and obligations regarding social media engagement (what to post, when to post, how frequently to post, etc), the schedule of photo or video shoots, compensation, and exclusivity/non-compete clauses that may extend two to three years beyond the term of the contract.

In the Philippines, broadcasting rights for the televised leagues are awarded through a bidding process. A memorandum of agreement details how much the deal is worth, how many years or seasons the contract will cover, whether the broadcasting rights are exclusive, and other relevant terms. Once broadcasting rights are granted to a media company, they have the right to choose which of its TV or radio stations will air the games. Media companies may also bundle these rights with the option to stream through YouTube or other online streaming services.

For leagues with multiple sports, such as the popular University Athletics Association of the Philippines (UAAP), the media company also decides which sports to air. The media company must also promote the games they air.

One way in which sports organisations attract broadcaster investment is through the marketing of rivalry games. For example, demand for tickets for rivalry games in the UAAP is higher than for other games, even if the game is not a play-off or final four match. Likewise, viewership on TV is also higher when the game is between rivals Ateneo de Manila University and De La Salle University. This is the same for Philippine Basketball Association games where the rivalry between Magnolia and Ginebra, known as Manila Classico, generates a higher viewership than other regular games.

Lastly, sports associations may also allow the filming of athletes off the court for certain promotional videos, such as clips of them saying “only here on [insert media company name]” or through clips of them answering short personal questions for the entertainment of fans, to be aired during commercial breaks.

According to the Intellectual Property Code, broadcasts are protected by copyright law for a period of 20 years from the date the broadcast. Rights of broadcasting organisations can be found in Chapter XIV of the Code.

Sports events are typically organised and managed by a professional league (such as the Philippine Basketball Association) or a college or university athletic association (such as the University Athletics Association of the Philippines). For international events in the Philippines, these are normally organised by a local organising committee set up for that particular event (such as the FIFA Futsal Women’s World Cup) or the sports governing body for that specific sport.

However, it is important to note that being granted hosting rights does not necessarily mean that the Philippine-based entity, whether a local organising committee or NSA, will be the proprietary rights holder. For example, in 2025, the Philippines was awarded hosting rights for the FIFA Futsal Women’s World Cup but FIFA remained the proprietary rights-holder. FIFA still had exclusive control over commercial matters such as merchandising and ticketing, broadcasting, intellectual property, and sponsorships, but heads of these departments at FIFA were assisted by a local counterpart within the local organising committee who was more familiar with the Philippine market and had on-the-ground capabilities. Under such a system, the local organising committee handles the on-the-ground work but must consult FIFA, which, as the rights-holder, has the final say.

As rights-holders, these sports organisers have proprietary rights in sports events under both copyright and trade mark provisions of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. Sports organisers control these rights through the enforcement of contracts and with the help of local law enforcement. Organisers also co-ordinate with social media platforms to immediately remove illegal live streaming of sports events. Commercial participation in such events is typically governed by sponsorship, licensing, and broadcasting contracts. Consequently, the Civil Code of the Philippines also serves as supplemental legislation due to the chain of contracts which generally characterise sports events.

The duty of care in sport is governed by provisions of the Philippine Civil Code, particularly Article 2176 which obligates one who causes damage to another, either by fault or negligence, to compensate for the damage done, and Article 1173 which sets the general duty of care as the diligence of a good father. Sports event organisers fall under this general standard of care. When minors are involved, the standard is stricter, as seen in a Supreme Court case wherein a sports organiser was held liable for the death of a teenage mini-marathon runner. Clear and unequivocal waivers may be used to limit liability, but liability arising from intentional harm, future fraud, and gross negligence may not be excluded. The assumption of risk doctrine may also be invoked by sports organisers, as long as the risks are reasonably foreseeable. To keep sporting events safe, organisers often contract security agencies. For larger events, organisers co-ordinate with the local government and local police to maintain peace and order both inside and outside the venues.

The same duty of care applies to athletes’ liability to spectators. However, athletes are protected if the injury to a spectator is a foreseeable event, based on the assumption of risk. An athlete may be held liable, however, for spectator injuries if these resulted from intentional acts (as was seen in a basketball incident where an athlete attacked a fan).

Professional sports clubs are commonly stock corporations registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). As professional sports clubs operate for profit, stock corporations are adopted as these allow the owners to earn profits via dividends as stockholders. Adopting a different structure would prevent investors from receiving such dividends.

Non-professional sports clubs and sports governing bodies, including  NSAs, are commonly structured as non-stock, non-profit corporations, also registered with the SEC. Non-stock corporations are established and operated by their members who are not entitled to receive dividends. As the aim of amateur clubs is to develop camaraderie among their members rather than generate profits, these clubs adopt a non-stock, non-profit structure, which also has tax benefits. Sports governing bodies or NSAs are required to adopt a non-stock, non-profit structure in order to apply for membership and recognition with both the Philippine Olympic Committee and Philippine Sports Commission.

There are no sport-specific corporate governance codes, except the provisions of the Republic Act No 6847, which created the Philippine Sports Commission. These provisions govern the sports governing bodies or NSAs of each sport. They require that the NSAs are autonomous and that no team, school, club, organisation or entity may be admitted as a voting member of the NSA unless 60% of the athletes comprising that team school, club, organisation or entity are Filipino citizens.

Owner and directors’ tests, such as tests on self-dealing directors, may be found in the general law on corporations (The Revised Corporation Code) and also apply to these sports governing bodies or NSAs.

The PSC is the main governmental funding source for Philippine sports. Congress allocates funds to the PSC through the Annual General Appropriations Act. To supplement the budget allocated by Congress, the PSC also receives a legally mandated portion of the gross income of PAGCOR, the government-owned and controlled corporation in charge of regulating gambling and casinos. After finding that PAGCOR had not been remitting the full 5% of its gross income to the PSC, the Supreme Court recently ordered PAGCOR to account for and remit the full amount of its gross income per year from 1993 to the present.

PSC funds are pooled into the National Sports Development Fund (NSDF), which finances the sports events in which the Philippines participates.

As for distributing these funds to the NSAs, the PSC has discretion to decide which NSA receives a portion of the NSDF and the amount. Factors that influence the distribution and allocation of funds include the prestige of the sport and also the chances of securing Olympic medals. Once the NSA receives the money, it is then accountable to the PSC and subject to audit. 

Trade marks may be registered online with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). Trade mark owners only acquire the rights in a mark through registration. Generally, only a registered trade mark is protected by law. Once registered, third parties may not use it without the owner’s consent.

The law prohibits the registration of a mark which:

• is immoral, deceptive, or scandalous;
• disparages or falsely suggests a connection with a person (whether living or dead), institutions, beliefs, or national symbols;
• brings contempt or disrepute to another;
• has the Philippine flag (or flag of another country) on it;
• includes the name, portrait, or signature of a living person, except with their consent;
• uses the portrait of a dead president, during the life of their spouse, except with the latter’s consent;
• is misleading as to nature, quality, characteristic, or geographical origin; 
• is generic or simply identifies the product it will be used on;
• is simply descriptive of the product; or
• is contrary to public order or morals.

Notable registered sports trade marks involve those of collegiate teams, where the numerous marks associated to a college or university are all registered with the IPO, as well as the respective trade marks of sports teams and the companies that own them.

The law on copyright is found in Part IV of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (the “IP Code”). Under the IP Code, literary and artistic works are considered original intellectual creations, and are protected from the moment of their creation. Common defences include fair use, the fact that the work is a non-copyrightable work, private reproduction in a single copy for use in study or research, and personal use.

As regards the existence of a legal database right, the law on copyright protects the creation of such database, as it might be considered a derivative work or a compilation of data and other materials. To establish such a claim, it must be proven that the process of creating the database (such as the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the compiled information and data) is original to the creator.

Image rights in the Philippines generally equate to the right of publicity; a right recognised in the United States. While the right of publicity has yet to explicitly find its way into Philippine jurisprudence or in express provisions of law, aggrieved parties may seek relief under Section 169.1 of the IP Code. This section refers to false designations of origin or false description or representation.

World Champion Boxer Manny Pacquiao used Section 169.1 to sue a videoke product-maker for making use of his name and image without his consent. He won the case in the Court of Appeals in 2009, with the Court of Appeals stating that Pacquiao’s image should be protected from unauthorised endorsements under Section 169.1.

Common law doctrines, such as unfair competition, have largely been codified in the IP Code, particularly Section 168. This Section makes it, among other things, illegal for any person to induce a false belief that they are offering the services of another who has identified such services in the mind of the public. False statements made in the course of trade are also considered unfair competition in the eyes of the law. Section 168, along with Section 169.1 as noted in 5.3 Recognising Personality/Image Rights, can be used to protect an athlete’s image rights and prevent the unauthorised exploitation of those rights.

Sports bodies and athletes monetise their IP and image rights through both licensing and endorsement contracts. In terms of assigning IP rights to third parties, the assignment must be in writing and filed in the IPO. If the assignment is not registered, it is void with respect to third parties; however, it is still binding between the parties. 

The assignment of IP rights is considered a form of technology transfer under the IP Code. It is governed by Chapter IX of the IP Code, which aims to encourage assignments while preventing abuse of IP rights and adverse effects on competition and trade. Restrictions on such assignments are detailed in Sections 87 and88 of the IP Code.

Section 87 lists provisions in any transfer agreement that are prohibited. In general, these are clauses in voluntary licensing agreements that may harm competition by:

• restricting the licensee’s business freedom, such as limiting the assignee to only use a particular supplier of raw materials, manpower or technology;
• controlling the licensee’s output of pricing, such as restricting volume or structure of production; or
• expanding the assigned IP rights beyond the lawful scope, such as requiring royalty payments even after the termination of any voluntary assignment agreement.

On the other hand, Section 88 lists provisions that must be included in a transfer agreement. In general, these are the applicability of Philippine law and rules on venue, granting the assignee continued access to improvements in techniques and processes related to the IP, and the applicability of either the rules of procedure of the Arbitration of the Arbitration Law of the Philippines, the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, or the International Chamber of Commerce in the event of arbitration.

If the transfer agreement either contains a prohibited provision under Section 87 or lacks a mandatory provision under Section 88, the agreement is automatically deemed unenforceable, unless said agreement is approved and registered with the Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau under Section 91, which covers exceptional cases where substantial economic benefits are expected to result from the assignment.

The use of athlete and spectator data is not as extensive in the Philippines as in other jurisdictions. However, there has been a push to commercialise and monetise sports data in live sports events to further enhance fan experience. The recent legalisation of sports betting has opened up opportunities for monetising sports data, but it still has to comply with any data-sharing regulations under the Data Privacy Act of 2012.

The Data Privacy Act of 2012 (DPA) is the main law governing data protection in the Philippines. It is supplemented by the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) issued by the National Privacy Commission (NPC), which is the government agency tasked to implement the DPA. The DPA protects any personal information, defined as any information in which the identity of an individual is apparent or can be reasonably and directly ascertained by the entity holding the information, or which, when put together with other information, would directly and certainly identify an individual.

The DPA protects sensitive information to a greater and stricter extent. Sensitive personal information pertains to a person’s race, education, criminal record, and religion, among others. The processing and sharing of sensitive personal information require prior consent at all times. This is an important consideration in collegiate sports, especially as student-athletes must give their consent to the sharing of their transcript of records when they transfer from one school to another.

The role of national courts in dealing with sports disputes differs depending on the type of sports dispute.

For field-of-play calls, the Supreme Court, in a 1995 case, established  a policy of refusing to resolve field-of-play call disputes. Unless there is an arbitrary and brazen violation of sports rules by the sports officials and organisers, national courts will defer to the original decisions.

For sports disputes involving the application of local laws, parties may immediately seek redress in the national court system, unless there is a provision between the parties mandating recourse through ADR or via the internal processes of a sports governing body. Examples of these sports disputes are those involving sports injuries and employment claims.

For sports disputes involving the interpretation of the rules of sports governing bodies (such as on eligibility matters and disciplinary issues), parties must generally exhaust the internal mechanisms of the sports governing body before national courts will consider the matter. This is based on the analogous doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. However, if there is a human rights element or the act of the sports governing body is oppressive or arbitrary, immediate recourse to a local court may be possible.

The Philippines currently does not have a dispute resolution mechanism specific to sports. Parties who wish to use ADR may do so under the aegis of Republic Act No 9285, the ADR Act of the Philippines. Private dispute resolution providers, such as the Philippine Dispute Resolution Centre, Inc, have drafted their own sports mediation and arbitration rules, which may be used by sports governing bodies if they choose to do so.

Sports governing bodies may enforce sanctions on their players and members either through their own internal rules (as long as minimum due process requirements of prior notice and the chance to be heard are met) or through the court system (with contract law principles and remedies as a basis).

Parties who wish to challenge decisions of governing bodies will have to exhaust the internal mechanisms first. This will generally involve requesting reconsideration of a contested decision and, thereafter, elevating it to the international federation with jurisdiction over the local governing body. If the decision is manifestly arbitrary and oppressive, local courts may also be an avenue for redress.

The governing law for labour and employment in the Philippines is the Labour Code of the Philippines. To determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists between parties, the Supreme Court has repeatedly used the fourfold test, which employs the following four elements:

• the selection and engagement of the employee;
• the payment of wages;
• the power of dismissal over the employee; and
• the employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct.

Despite the presence of all four elements in the relationship between professional teams and their players, and a 2012 Supreme Court case involving the illegal dismissal of a player-employee by his professional team, professional sports teams have still treated their players as independent contractors in practice. This is in clear contrast to what is written in the law, the nature of the relationship, and the international practice that considers players as employees of their professional teams. This leads to both tax and employment law complications, and removes protections that should have been afforded a player if they were to be considered an employee in the first place.

The Philippine Basketball Association, the longest-running professional basketball league in the Philippines, employs both a standard contract for its players and a salary cap. Other professional leagues allow their teams to negotiate their own contracts with their players.

Despite the employer-employee nature of the relationship between the professional team and its players, legal precedence, and international practice, the rules on employer-employee rights are rarely applied or followed in professional leagues in the Philippines. Consequently, professional athletes who are illegally removed or dismissed from their teams are often left in a quandary on the proper legal course of action to take. Should they file a case with the Labour Arbiter (as employees) or with the regular courts (as independent contractors)? While the correct answer should be the Labour Arbiter, the practice in the Philippines of considering professional athletes as independent contractors has allowed employees to raise the additional defence of lack of jurisdiction whenever a case is filed with the Labour Arbiter.

A noteworthy case is the 2012 Supreme Court Case of Negros Slasher, Inc v Alvin Teng, where the Supreme Court ruled that a player-employee was illegally dismissed by his professional basketball team after he had refused to play a championship game. The Supreme Court recognised the player as an employee and ruled that his dismissal was too harsh a penalty.

There are no specific laws capping the number of foreign athletes competing in a sport tournament or competition, as these “caps” are normally set by the league or association conducting the competition. There are, however, visa, immigration, and labour law considerations that foreign athletes or coaches must consider before playing or working in the Philippines. In particular, foreign athletes or coaches must secure a pre-arranged employee commercial visa (9g visa) and an alien employment permit (AEP) before working in the Philippines.

One of the substantial conditions to secure an AEP is the prior determination of the non-availability of a person in the Philippines who is competent, able, and willing to perform the same services which the foreign worker will be engaged to provide. This was the main issue in a 1991 Supreme Court case involving an American basketball coach employed by a professional basketball team. In that case, the Supreme Court ultimately cancelled the American’s AEP after it found that there were other local coaches who were available to do the same job.

The Philippine sports landscape has historically been male-dominated and basketball-centric. However, recent trends have swayed the pendulum towards women’s sports. Collegiate and professional women’s volleyball bring in crowds of nearly 25,000 to big games, which is significantly more than the attendance for a typical professional basketball game. The success of women athletes on the international stage has also shone a well-deserved light on women’s sports. Olympic Gold Medalist Hidilyn Diaz leveraged her success by starting a weightlifting academy for children and signing lucrative endorsement deals. The Philippine National Women’s Football Team made waves in its first appearance in the FIFA World Cup and won the Philippines’ historic gold medal in the 2025 Southeast Asian Games. Their success has driven more grassroots development throughout the country and also earned the team an enviable kit deal with Adidas. International athletes such as Maxine Esteban and Junna Tsukii have also found success in other sports such as fencing and karate.

In 2025, Alexandra Eala’s dramatic jump in world rankings from No 147 to No 50 created a spike in interest in tennis in the Philippines, just in time for the country’s hosting of the World Tennis Association 125 Tournament. Similarly, the Philippine Women’s Futsal Team’s appearance in the inaugural FIFA Futsal Women’s World Cup saw an increase in viewership from match day one to the final, with the final match drawing a record attendance of 5,087. The World Cup also inspired young girls to join futsal training camps, with roughly 1,500 girls participating in the grassroots and development activities organised by FIFA and the Philippine Football Federation.

Women in esports are also on the rise. Since 2022, the Philippines always had a team place third runner-up or higher in the Mobile Legends: Bang Bang Women’s Invitational (MWI) 2025 during the Esports World Cup, including a team championship and an Individual fFnals Most Valuable Player in 2024. In 2025, two Philippine teams had dominant starts and reached the playoffs, where one team eventually ranked third runner-up. The Philippine Women’s MLBB team also won silver in the 2025 South-East Asian Games. 

The Philippine Sports Commission has created a Gender and Development Programme to hold tournaments, and share updates and news about women’s sports and female athletes. Other private organisations, such as Girls Got Game, have also been established to promote different sports in the youth sector. There are also private organisations like Go Hard Girls that advocate for the rights and interests of women in sports, extending beyond female athletes.

Esports is extremely popular in the Philippines. Its rise from the early 2000s to the present has been exponential. It is predominantly mobile-based, with the Mobile Legends: Bang Bang (MLBB) being the most popular game with more than 25 million monthly active users in 2020. An estimated 43 million Filipinos take part in esports or mobile gaming. 

The Philippines continues to be a strong force in esports, particularly in MLBB. In 2025, the Philippines won its fourth consecutive gold medal in the South-East Asian Games and won the championship against the top contender, Malaysia, in the MLBB Mid-Season Cup.

Philippine esports dominance has also been expanding outside MLBB. In 2025, Patrick Mendoza became the first ever Filipino to win a major international Valorant tournament, winning the VCT Masters Toronto 2025. He also won Rookie of the Year and Initiator of the Year. The Philippines also brought home two silver medals and two gold medals in Call of Duty Mobile (CODM) in the CODM World Championship 2025, Garena Masters 2025 S9, Garena Summer Invitation 2025, and Garena Masters 2025 S8. A Philippine CrossFire Stars team also reached the highest placement by a Philippine team in a first-person shooting game, finishing in the top four at the Esports World Cup and as runner-up  at CrossFire Stars 2025.

In 2025, the Philippines hosted the HoK Invitational S3, a global Honor of Kings tournament, and the Honor of Kings International Championship 2025.

Philippine esports in 2025 saw growth outside MLBB and outside mobile games in general. As mentioned in 9.1. Development and Growth of Esports, Philippine teams have seen global recognition in various esports games outside MLBB. Moreover, Honor of Kings, another esport game that the Philippine teams fared well in in 2025, has officially surpassed MLBB in popularity, measured by estimated monthly users in the Philippines.

Another notable trend is the increase in popularity of collegiate competitions, reflected in both participation and improved performance. In 2025, the National University’s MLBB team became the first ever champions of the inaugural Galaxy Gaming Academy X Mobile Legends: Bang Bang Campus Series 2025. Two major national collegiate leagues, Philippine Collegiate Championship and Alliance Games, which are in their third and fifth seasons respectively, have recognised this trend and have responded by expanding their competition to include other games beyond MLBB and by increasing prize pools.

The biggest inter-university sports tournament in the Philippines, the University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP), officially introduced esports in 2024 with three games – NBA 2K24, Valorant and MLBB. Likewise, the biggest inter-college sports tournament, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) officially launched a special tournament for MLBB in 2025. Unlike the UAAP, the NCAA has yet to fully incorporate esports in the main sports member schools compete in. In 2025, the MLBB tournament was a stand-alone event in the NCAA.

A notable deal in 2025 was DITO Telecommunity’s partnership with Team Liquid PH. DITO is a growing telecommunications company in the Philippines, while Team Liquid PH is the Philippine team of the Swiss-based esports organisation, Team Liquid. The partnership was timely for DITO, as it began before the 2025 MLBB Mid-Season Cup. In the tournament, Team Liquid PH wore DITO-branded shirts and ultimately emerged victorious, defeating the defending champions in the finals. This was great exposure for DITO, a growing telecommunications company competing in an industry of well-established giants.

Another notable deal is Visa’s partnership with GCash, the Philippines largest cashless payment app, as part of Visa’s expanding investment in global esports. In the Philippines, it has partnered with GCash to make in-game payments faster, safer, and more accessible. Visa is working with international esports organisations and GCash to offer exclusive experiences and event access to Filipino gamers, whether as esports national representatives or as spectators of international esports tournaments.

A few athletes ventured into the world of NFTs in late 2020 and 2021 to launch various NFT projects. One notable athlete even started an NFT project to help fund a national team, but this was later scrapped after negotiations fell through and the NFT bubble bust in late 2021. While the NFT market in the sports sector in the Philippines remains virtually non-existent, there are still opportunities for those who are willing to explore an alternate mode of funding and navigate the risks of such a volatile environment.

There is no key AI legislation or regulations in the Philippines. At most, general laws concerning intellectual property and data protection will apply to AI in the field of sports. Both intellectual property and data protection will also be most affected by AI, as there are inherent risks of infringement and leaks of personal data with AI and sports.

The Philippines has always been a country known for its internet use and social media engagement, with data showing that sponsors can reach up to 69% of the country’s population through Facebook and nearly 50% through YouTube. Consequently, the application of the Metaverse in Philippine sports holds great opportunities for sports stakeholders, despite its adoption rate remaining quite low compared to traditional internet use.

Stakeholders can use the Metaverse to further boost individual and corporate brands, enhance the reputation of personal coaches and athletes through expanded access to highlight videos and teaching seminars, and provide sponsors with a new platform to increase brand recognition.

However, those who wish to enter the Metaverse must recognise the inherent risks of data breaches and manipulation, intellectual property violations, and the proliferation of bots and troll accounts. Enforcing the underlying laws may also be an issue, given the ephemeral nature of the internet and the ease of remaining anonymous online.