reply The Morality Clauses in esports contracts really do stand on a thin line between protecting an organization from public scrutiny as well as respecting a player's personal identity. So, in theory these clauses are created to prevent major scandals that could harm a sponsor or a team's reputation. In practice though they are often used as a vague and one-sided tool that gives the team almost total control of how a player behaves even when the player is off the clock. Since every organization operates in a different brand and cultural context, so using this as a standardized option simply would not work since these clauses need to be tailored to an individual instance with clear writing built on accountability of all parties. The biggest problem is how loose they word these clauses, things I have seen come up are "bringing the organization into disrepute" which is so open-ended it could be twisted for the purpose so the company can find a reason to justify just about any termination. Things like political comments, expressing personal beliefs or even making jokes online have all led to damage to a person's contract with a gaming company or entertainment company such as YouTube or Twitch. The best creators build a community based on being their own real self rather than fitting into the contract's ideal version of the creator. So, when these teams over police, they risk the destruction of the value from that person especially the community they built. You can tell when som