Astralis parent company responds to BLAST Pro Series controversy

Recent weeks have seen increasing fan dissatisfaction regarding Astralis’ tournament participation decisions in the competitive CS:GO scene.

Several premier international tournaments have concluded without participation from the world’s top-ranked Counter-Strike: Global Offensive squad. However, this absence doesn’t reflect lack of effort—Astralis has strategically concentrated their competitive focus exclusively on BLAST Pro Series competitions.

This selective scheduling approach, combined with the shared ownership structure where both Astralis and BLAST Pro Series fall under RFRSH Entertainment’s corporate umbrella, has generated significant controversy among the esports community. RFRSH leadership is actively addressing these concerns, with Vice President of Commercial Development and Partnerships Jordi Roig providing detailed explanations to HLTV.org about the situation while defending both organizational branches.

“Our 2019 season format includes seven partnered organizations, with each required to compete in five of the seven scheduled tournaments,” Roig clarified. “We maintain strict impartiality—our primary objective ensures teams arrive at events well-rested and prepared to deliver peak performance.”

Roig further elaborated on BLAST Pro Series’ competition structure and confirmed RFRSH currently isn’t pursuing exclusive participation agreements with competing teams. The discussion around Astralis’ strategic scheduling has reignited several sensitive topics within the professional CS:GO ecosystem.

What is the conflict of interest with Astralis and BLAST?

The BLAST Pro Series tournament circuit debuted in 2017 with its inaugural Copenhagen event before expanding into a comprehensive competitive series starting with BLAST Pro Series: Sao Paulo earlier this year.

Astralis has maintained perfect attendance across all BLAST-hosted competitions, including three 2019 appearances. Despite their consistent participation in BLAST events, the Danish powerhouse has declined invitations to multiple significant tournaments such as StarSeries Season 7 and Intel Extreme Masters Season XIV Sydney. This selective participation strategy has raised legitimate questions about potential exclusivity demands from BLAST and whether RFRSH might be leveraging their ownership position to disadvantage competing tournament organizers.

Team coach Danny “zonic” Sørensen detailed their strategic approach via Twitter, explaining the preference for BLAST competitions stems from reduced travel demands and condensed event formats that minimize player fatigue.

Roig supported this perspective by contrasting Astralis’ method with MiBR’s exhaustive schedule. The Brazilian squad competed in every major available tournament, traveling extensively across Katowice, Sao Paulo, Miami, Chongqing, and Shanghai within a two-month window. MiBR’s performance struggles during this period suggest potential correlation with their demanding travel and competition calendar.

Looking towards future competitive structures, legitimate concerns emerge about RFRSH’s ability to impartially administer league operations while maintaining financial interests in one competing organization’s success. The current BLAST competition framework provides limited opportunity for competitive manipulation through its round-robin group stage progressing to best-of-three finals. The circuit format additionally restricts each participating team to five of seven tournaments, ensuring Astralis possesses no inherent advantage in qualifying for December’s BLAST Grand Finals.

The esports industry faces critical questions about tournament organizer ownership structures and their impact on competitive integrity. When an organization controls both the competition platform and participating teams, inherent conflicts emerge that challenge traditional sports governance models.

Professional Counter-Strike organizations must balance multiple considerations when planning their competitive calendars: player wellness, travel logistics, preparation time, and strategic objectives. Unlike traditional sports with fixed league schedules, esports teams navigate a complex landscape of overlapping tournaments with varying prestige, prize pools, and competitive value.

The current controversy highlights three critical industry challenges: tournament saturation creating scheduling conflicts, ownership concentration raising integrity concerns, and the absence of standardized governance frameworks for conflict resolution.

Where is Astralis playing next?

Astralis’ immediate competitive focus centers on BLAST Pro Series: Madrid, representing their fourth BLAST circuit appearance in 2019. With the BLAST framework limiting teams to five circuit events before December’s grand finals, the Danish squad can participate in only one additional BLAST tournament this season.

Despite their selective participation in non-BLAST competitions, Astralis maintains involvement in other prestigious tournaments. The team currently competes in ESL Pro League Season 9’s European division and has secured qualification for Esports Championship Series Season 7 Finals.

Strategic tournament selection represents a critical component of elite esports performance management. Teams must evaluate multiple factors: travel distance and recovery time, tournament format and duration, preparation requirements, competitive significance, and long-term strategic objectives. Understanding these dynamics helps fans appreciate the complex decision-making behind professional team scheduling.

No reproduction without permission：Games Guides Website » Astralis parent company responds to BLAST Pro Series controversy Understanding the Astralis-BLAST ownership controversy and its impact on competitive CS:GO scheduling