As with most eSports, the key metric is how much inflow there is and how much outflow. I'm not familiar enough with Overwatch specifically, but it sounds like

As with most eSports, the key metric is how much inflow there is and how much outflow. I'm not familiar enough with Overwatch specifically, but it sounds like there isn't enough income and prize pools to go around. The top team may earn a decent wage and splashy amounts, but there isn't enough at the 2nd or top 10 rung to support a thriving ecosystem longer-term. I'm more familiar with the LoL/DotA scene where there's enough smaller tournaments and the prize pool+sponsorships are enough to cover a wide range of top talent. Yeah, there's a lot of hype about winning the #1 Internationals, but that's only for one team out of hundreds that play. Or compare to how LoL is set up with their leagues where the top X teams get to play consistently and take in a steady income. Plus their broadcasting system to bring in more income to support the scene. Similarly, you can look at stream numbers to get a feel for other income available to the players. In general, without a healthy "middle-class" and "upper middle-class" of players to bring excitement and income, you lack the buzz and support to build top-tier competition longer term. And those don't exist unless there are ways for them to keep playing and monetize their skills. Fortunately, if you're grinding up the FPS ladders, most FPS games tend to have more transferable skills letting you move from game to game more easily than some genres. Ninja is pretty famous for being the best at Fortnite, but he was a pro PUBG player and pro Halo 3 player before that. So it's not uncommon to see FPS pro players shift between the more in vogue FPS game of the time. (Caveat that not all FPS games reward the same skills and all that, CS is not TF2 is not CoD is not Fortnite is not Overwatch)