As of now, the issue of “loaning players” remains a hot topic in the Chinese League of Legends community.
Weibo bloggers specializing in League of Legends have also been sharing rumors about player loans, including several articles related to the potential participation of Bin and SofM at Worlds. On the personal Weibo of blogger Laozi, some information was revealed: Currently, there is a jungler and a top laner struggling to obtain a visa for international travel.
SofM, Karsa, and Kanavi are reportedly being considered as alternatives if this jungler encounters issues while abroad. However, the most “unusual” case appears to be Bin, the top laner of Suning. Currently, the entire SN team is on break after the season, but for the past four days, Bin has unexpectedly returned to try-hard mode, playing at least 5 hours of ranked games each day on the Korean server.
According to sources from China, Bin seems to be the first player to receive a visa request offer as a backup plan, so he has decided to “practice” in preparation for participating in Worlds with one of the four teams: EDG, FPX, RNG, or LNG.
However, Chinese media also note that RNG and FPX have very little chance of substituting players, as both teams have traveled to Europe in the past, making visa applications in this region much easier. Therefore, the two cases facing visa difficulties mentioned above are believed to belong to EDG and LNG.
Public opinion in China is currently divided into two contrasting views: one side opposes this law (and the way many others express excessive, toxic emotions by directly demanding that some underperforming players “stay home” and give their slots to others). The other side is quite eager for the prospect of participating teams at Worlds 2021 being supplemented with “mercenary” stars to fill their weaknesses before heading to Europe.
However, regardless of the opinions, we must wait for the official visa application results. Most representatives from the LPL confirm that the need to loan players is highly unlikely, and the aforementioned law has only been put in place for the purpose of “better safe than sorry.”