The world of esports is fast becoming a mainstream form of competition and entertainment. While there is debate over whether esports should be recognized as a sport, the emergence of competitive video gaming has seen a rise in many of the problems associated with traditional sport including: doping, gambling-related match-fixing and non-gambling related corruption. Indeed, the esports gambling market has quickly surpassed the total legal sports wagering market in the United States, including daily fantasy sports. This paper examines esports growth and the evolving integrity challenges being faced by players, tournament organizers, gamblers, sponsors, politicians, and fans. Esports, like traditional sports, faces both internal and external corruption-related threats. Internal threats facing competitive video gaming include the use of performance-enhancing drugs and match-fixing. The industry also faces external pressure from a large gambling industry that exists in both regulated and unregulated markets. The entire esports ecosystem is now facing increased scrutiny from various

Competitive video gaming is rapidly gaining mainstream attention. Major U.S. television networks have commenced broadcasting such competitions. The term esports has been assigned to the practice, but it remains to be seen whether lawmakers and regulators agree that the contests are indeed sports. This paper provides a comprehensive examination, analysis, and application of the tests that have previously been used to determine whether an activity is a sport. We illustrate potential streams of litigation, some of which are specific to activities classified as sport. The emergence of esports in the United States has highlighted the absence of a legal definition of sport. Be it the newest form of sport or not, esports afford a glimpse to the future of creative competition, business innovation, and the related legal, policy, and litigation implications emerging alongside this new (sporting or otherwise competitive) activity.

No abstract

No abstract

Officials are expected to perform impeccably despite the wide range of stressors they experience. A stressor that officials frequently report is situation criticality. Situation criticality is comprised of score differential (i.e., more pressure in close games) and time remaining in a game (i.e., more pressure as time expires), which affects athletes' stress levels. The present study explored the effect of situation criticality on officials' stress levels. High school basketball officials (n = 108) with an average of 18.1 (SD = 11.2) years of officiating experience were given a survey packet containing game situations that varied in criticality. For each game situation (n = 9) officials completed the overall stress and appraisal portions of the Stress Appraisal Measure (SAM). Results revealed that situation criticality has an effect on officials' perceived stress levels. Both threat and challenge appraisals were positively correlated with perceived stress. Overall, these findings indicate that officials' stress levels fluctuate within games depending on score differential and time of game. The findings encourage officials to recognise and manage their stress, possibly through their appraisals. Additionally, the findings can affect the training of officials in the management of stress, as well as prompt the consideration of potential rule changes that reflect the increased situational demands on officials in critical situations (e.g., expanded instant replay).