6GPA Expelled From Prime League 2 Over Unpaid Wages

German club 6GPA was formally expelled from Prime League 2 on March 4, with its official team status revoked over at least €7,150 in unpaid wages owed to players and staff who had worked with the organization since October 2025. The same day, 6GPA was also removed from VALORANT Challengers DACH after the organization no longer held a valid legal entity, a double removal that ended its participation across both of its competitive League of Legends and Valorant programs simultaneously.

The expulsion came less than seven months after 6GPA's promotion to Prime League 2 in late summer 2025, with the league citing a violation of Rule 3.6.8, which requires organizations to honor commitments to players, including promised compensation, even though Prime League 2 itself doesn't mandate that clubs pay players in the first place. Club CEO Batin "Cani" Malkoc did not respond to multiple requests for comment throughout the reporting process.

Results reported by Sheep Esports, March 27, 2026.

A fast fall from promotion to expulsion

6GPA's promotion to Prime League 2 in late summer 2025 and its expulsion roughly seven months later, in March 2026, gave the organization one of the shorter tenures a newly promoted club can have in a tier-two competitive league, with the financial problems underlying the expulsion apparently present almost from the very start of the promoted season. That compressed timeline, promotion followed by collapse within a single competitive year, suggests the organization's underlying financial instability predated its promotion rather than emerging only after it had already secured the higher-tier slot.

A rule that doesn't require payment but does require honesty

Prime League 2's rulebook not mandating that clubs pay players at all, while still requiring organizations to honor whatever compensation commitments they do make, created the specific legal basis, Rule 3.6.8, under which 6GPA's expulsion was ultimately justified. That distinction, no payment requirement itself but a binding obligation to follow through on promises actually made, meant 6GPA's violation centered specifically on failing to deliver on commitments it had voluntarily entered into, rather than on any baseline payment standard the league imposes on every club regardless of what they've promised.

Only one player reportedly paid

Dogukan "Dreilix" Kartop, a substitute AD carry, stood out as the only player reportedly paid among 6GPA's affected roster, a detail that leaves open why he specifically received payment while teammates including toplaner Melik "Kaylem" Erdogan went unpaid, with sources suggesting Kaylem was deliberately excluded after the club's CEO accused him of causing chaos by asking for salaries. That selective payment pattern, one player compensated while others covering comparable roles went without, raises questions about whether the organization's payment decisions reflected genuine financial constraints or something closer to targeted retaliation against players who pushed hardest for what they were owed.

A prior scam shaping one player's caution

Dreilix's own account that he had been scammed by a different second-division organization earlier in the year, which led him to specifically request upfront payment from 6GPA, shows how repeated financial misconduct across lower-tier esports organizations can shape individual players' negotiating behavior even before a new problem with a different club actually materializes. That history, one bad experience directly informing a player's caution with his next organization, situates 6GPA's own failures within a broader pattern of payment problems players at this competitive level appear to encounter more than once across different teams.

A payment plan promised and never delivered

The league organizer's February 18 request for a payment plan from 6GPA's CEO, followed by a February 26 follow-up that went entirely unanswered, gave the organization a direct opportunity to propose a resolution before the March 4 expulsion that it simply didn't take. That gap, roughly two weeks between a specific request for a concrete plan and the league's eventual decision to act, shows the expulsion wasn't an abrupt or hasty response but followed a documented period in which 6GPA had every opportunity to address the situation and chose not to engage.

Two different competitions, one legal failure

Losing both the Prime League 2 slot and the VALORANT Challengers DACH spot on the same day, specifically because the organization no longer maintained a valid legal entity, shows how a single underlying corporate failure can cascade across every competition a club participates in simultaneously, regardless of which specific game or league each roster competed in. That simultaneous double removal, one legal problem ending participation in two entirely separate competitive ecosystems at once, illustrates how foundational an organization's basic legal standing is to its ability to compete in esports at all, beyond any game-specific rules or performance standards.

A roster surviving its organization's collapse

The expelled roster continuing to compete as SixSeven while searching for a new organizing entity, reportedly still aiming for a potential promotion to the first division despite the upheaval, shows that a competitive roster's on-field trajectory doesn't necessarily end just because the organization that originally fielded it collapses. That continuity, players and staff persisting under a new identity after their original organization's expulsion, reflects how a league's structure can sometimes separate a roster's competitive standing from the specific corporate entity that happened to be sponsoring it at any given moment.

Staff working without the protection players had

Management staff including head coach Bourekda "AkaRyu" Abdelhai and assistant coach Houssem "Hainell" Gracha reportedly worked for 6GPA without formal contracts, based only on a verbal agreement for a paid offer, leaving them with even less formal recourse than the players who at least had contracts to point to when payments failed to arrive. That gap, coaching and management staff operating with less contractual protection than the players they supported, shows how payment disputes at a struggling organization can expose multiple tiers of vulnerability simultaneously, with non-playing staff sometimes even less protected than the roster itself.

An accusation used to justify withholding pay

The club's reported decision to accuse two Fall 2025 players of contract violations specifically to justify withholding their salaries, even though sources say one alleged violation was verbally authorized beforehand and no specific rule was identified for the other, suggests the accusations functioned more as a pretext for non-payment than as a genuine, well-founded disciplinary basis. That pattern, retroactively identifying a violation only once payment becomes an issue, is a tactic that can make a straightforward non-payment dispute look more complicated than it actually is, shifting scrutiny onto the players' supposed conduct rather than the organization's own financial failure.

What comes next

SixSeven's continued pursuit of a potential promotion to Prime League 2's first division gives the formerly 6GPA-affiliated roster a path forward independent of the organization whose financial failures led to its expulsion, though the players and staff still owed money from the Fall 2025 and Winter 2026 splits remain without resolution. Whether 6GPA's specific violation of Rule 3.6.8 prompts Prime League to reconsider whether clubs should face a baseline payment requirement rather than only a duty to honor whatever commitments they happen to make voluntarily is a question this case is likely to keep raising across the league's lower divisions.

The .esports registry publishes Esports Observer, so the whole scene can read its news for free.