Esports Governance: Exploring Stakeholder Dynamics

Peng, Qi; Dickson, Geoff; Scelles, Nicolas; Grix, Jonathan; Brannagan, Paul Michael

doi:10.3390/su12198270

Cited by 42 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On collegiate or amateur level, there are barely programs or approaches which tackle discriminatory and exclusive issues (Taylor & Stout, 2020). Generally, discriminatory behavior is becoming an overarching problem for sports that are consumed mainly online and anonymously, which is even intensified in casual gaming and semiprofessional esport due to its anonymous exertion (Hayday & Collison, 2020;Kwak et al, 2015;Mattinen & Macey, 2015;Peng et al, 2020). Players, willing to go pro, who do not see their performance being recognized also sense a feeling of exclusion (Schaeperkoetter et al, 2017).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contrary to these findings, two studies find a connection between esport activity and reduced physical activity with negative effects regarding the players' body composition (Bayraktar et al, 2020;DiFrancisco-Donoghue et al, 2020). DiFrancisco-Donoghue et al ( 2019) conclude that esport sees similar clinical pictures as sedentary desk Another study shows how the esport community can oppose a threat to the players mental health, due to toxic behavior and almost no regulatory systems preventing such (Peng et al, 2020).…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Qualitative and quantitative data show that brands, both sponsors and clubs, enter esport to reach a new younger, mostly male, target group (Bertschy et al, 2020;Elasri-Ejjaberi et al, 2020; and bring added value to consumers and fan experience (Abreu Freitas et al, 2020). Two qualitative studies observe that game developers and publishers are the dominant player in esport, since it is a major revenue business, and it can be used as a marketing tool for games distribution (Peng et al, 2020;.…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The societal impact of electronic sport: a scoping review

Riatti

Thiel

2021

Ger J Exerc Sport Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competitive computer gaming, known as electronic sport or esport, is growing and professionalizing profoundly during the past years with experts struggling to allocate it in society. This scoping review explores existing evidence and identifies potential societal impact of esport by applying the Mapping Elite Sports Societal Impact Model. Main findings included insights on the motivation of passive and active esport consumption, beneficial socializing, pedagogical or educational aspects, hegemonial clinical pictures in esport, differing popularity regarding demographics and games, and potential interference of the esport economy in traditional sports. The findings implicate a paradigm shift in the world of sport. It can be stated that esport affects society in a positive and a negative way, although the fragmented body of research has only given superficial evidence so far. Future research needs to go into detail regarding the peculiarities and find approaches of isolating the positive aspects, while reducing the negative spin-offs and allow a well-regulated handling of esport on a broad societal level.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The societal impact of electronic sport: a scoping review

Riatti

Thiel

2021

Ger J Exerc Sport Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Issues of integrity and ethics are closely related to the model of governance of the eSports industry. According to Peng and colleagues (Peng et al, 2020 ) the esports network is not governed in a way that it enables it to respond quickly and appropriately to the issues it encounters. Based upon an analysis of the current esports governance model, they plead for more social responsibility of new digital and technological industries and question the “ often-neglected social impact of esports as a result of the profit-seeking governance model .” Given the integrity issues that esports are facing, governments should play a main role in facilitating another model of governance.…”

Section: The Value Of Fair Playmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Dear IOC”: Considerations for the Governance, Valuation, and Evaluation of Trends and Developments in eSports

Postma

Delden

Hilvoorde

2022

Front. Sports Act. Living

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2021, the International Olympic Committee ventured virtual space by launching their first ever Olympic Virtual Series – featuring virtual baseball, cycling, rowing, sailing and motor racing. Interestingly, all these virtual events take strongly after their physical counterparts. Which begs the question: Where are the massively popular esports games like Fortnite, League of Legends, and Dota?–What do the Olympic Virtual Series have that these popular video games do not? Here, we argue for the inclusion of esports within the Olympic program. In many respects, esports “act” and “behave” just like traditional sports. We argue that esports and traditional sports share many of the same values, like the values of meritocracy, competition, fair play, and the value of having a “level playing field”. Yet, in esports, many of these values remain underappreciated, losing out to negative values such as physical inactivity and game-addiction. To preserve what is worth preserving, we borrow from Value Sensitive Design to ameliorate the design-tensions that are foregrounded in esports. Thereby, paving possible ways toward the inclusion of esports in the Olympic program. Ultimately, the question for the IOC should not be “does it look like ‘real sport’, as we know it?”, but rather: are they sporting, rule-led, and fair activities worth preserving and setting an example for a new digitally savvy generation?

show abstract

“…1 The key component of esports—the video game—depends on digital operating systems developed by these economic enterprises (Funk et al, 2018 ). Peng et al ( 2020 ) consider game publishers the essential key stakeholder in the esports ecosystem. In most cases, they are developers, publishers, and, notably, the exclusive owners of the decisive property rights (Karhulahti, 2017 ; Abanazir, 2018 ; Peng et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Esports Associations and the Pursuit of Legitimacy: Evidence From Germany

Heidenreich

Brandt

Dickson

et al. 2022

Front. Sports Act. Living

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dominant position of esports game publishers is a fundamental difference between the systemic governance of esports and traditional sports. There are no such equivalent organizations in traditional sports. As for-profit corporations, the publishers develop and market the electronic games as their commercial products and thus, possess exclusive property rights. Publishers control the virtual sporting environment and the rules of the game. In conventional sports, by contrast, non-profit associations administer their sports with the core task of developing the sport by regulations, playing rules, and licensing. There are, however, esports associations which resemble traditional leagues and national governing bodies. Given this, we explore how esports associations pursue legitimacy. This study is empirically motivated by the recent emergence of two esports associations in the insightful case of Germany and examines the pursuit of legitimacy by the World Esports Association (WESA) and the eSport-Bund Deutschland e.V. (ESBD). The study is based on a content analysis of 55 documents and nine interviews with relevant stakeholders. The findings show that the esports associations rely on conformance and manipulation strategies by transferring existing structures from traditional sports to esports. The most effective practices are lobbying for social and public acceptance of esports and creating supportive networks for esports development. While publishers possess an undisputed and taken-for-granted legitimacy based on their product property rights, esports associations struggle for recognition and acceptance. They may still have a long way to go, given that established associations in conventional sports have a history for decades. Yet, esports associations need to accept publisher dominance. Thus, they can only claim partial legitimacy within the esports ecosystem by targeting segments of stakeholders. Management, policy and theoretical implications of this key insight are finally presented.

show abstract

Esports Governance: Exploring Stakeholder Dynamics

Cited by 42 publications

References 29 publications

The societal impact of electronic sport: a scoping review

The societal impact of electronic sport: a scoping review

“Dear IOC”: Considerations for the Governance, Valuation, and Evaluation of Trends and Developments in eSports

Esports Associations and the Pursuit of Legitimacy: Evidence From Germany

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About