eSports is Business by Tobias M. Scholz

Author:Tobias M. Scholz
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9783030111991
Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Secondary Stakeholders

Governing Bodies

A significant aspect of criticism of eSports is the seeming lack of governance (e.g., Hollist 2016; Chao 2017; Holden et al. 2017a, b). This argument co-aligns with the claim that eSports are like the Wild West. However, there are various entities in eSports that do try to create a specific governance, but it is important to highlight that eSports is just an umbrella term for various games. Traditional sports federations like the Olympic Committee demand that eSports have a governing organization that enforces the rules and regulations of the Olympic movement (Reuters 2018). The underlying message is that eSports should adopt the structures and regulations of traditional sports, and that could be a valid proposition, but eSports may not fit with these structures (Blicharz, cited in Miceli 2018b). Furthermore, talking about the entirety of eSports is presumptuous from a governance perspective. This envisioned top-down governance structure would mean not only uniting all stakeholders in one combined federation but also compelling all future eSports titles and all emerging eSports nations to join this global federation.

Interestingly, the equivalent of a global and overarching governance structure in sports would be the Global Association of International Sports Federations (GAISF), which does not include all sports played around the world. Furthermore, the mission of the GAISF is not to govern every federation in the world, but to bring federations and stakeholders together (GAISF n.d.). Consequently, traditional sports and several other institutions demand an introduction of governance structures for all eSports, something they fail to create for traditional sports.

Many secondary stakeholders do not realize that eSports describes a range of different games, different stakeholders, and, actually, everybody playing video games competitively. Consequently, eSports is ungovernable by one clear authority. There are several approaches to achieving governance more traditionally through federations, but they lack legitimacy in the eSports scene. There is an equivalent to an international governance body called the International e-Sports Federation, consisting of various national federations all over the world; on the other hand, there are industry-driven governance structures like the World Esports Association (WESA), founded by major industry brands. Beyond those attempts, the game developers own the game and have every legal right to change the game in any way they want. It becomes evident that creating governance structures mimicking those of traditional sports may not be sufficient, particularly as young sports also do not follow those suffocating structures. For example, the World Skateboarding Federation tries to be the umbrella organization for all types of skateboarding and its mission is to grow and connect involved stakeholders, promoting the sport: the only aspect of regulation is about creating a centralized scoring system (WSF n.d.). Compared to governance structures like the NBA or the NFL, it is even more striking that the business focus increasingly overweighs the sport interests (Ejiochi 2014). For example, the NBA team New York Knicks is the most valuable team, although it rarely succeeds in the playoffs (Forbes 2018). Everybody talks about the need for governance, but everybody understands something completely different by it.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.