I Adoption of Sports Law Principles in Esports
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Adoption of Sports Law Principles in Esports: The need for a more comprehensive governance model in Esports to protect stakeholders. April 2021 i Abstract The esports industry has grown from strength to strength since the turn of the century having grown in viewership year on year and is predicted to have a larger viewership than every US professional sports league other than the NFL in 2021. As a result, more the professionalism and scrutiny of esports has grown with a number of organisations created to govern the ecosystem. The project used systematic review with thematic analysis to examine existing and past esports governance models, cases and events alongside a sports comparison. This was to help understand how effective governance has been in esports and if it could be improved to better protect stakeholders. Sports is still developing its governance with recent corruption within FIFA and the IOC but has underlined transparency, financial integrity and accountability as principles to improve its governance; these are considerations that esports should follow. Past and existing esports governing organisations have failed or lack authority in esports due to control of publisher intellectual property rights ensuring they have full control of the game titles. Global esports governing organisations have also been created frequently and promotes confusion among stakeholders over their authority and the aims for the industry. Since the creation of WESA and ESIC, it has seen improvements in governing esports with the protection of the integrity within competition and the operations of leagues and teams. However, they are missing principles laid out by sports failures leaving stakeholders worried about conflict of interest over certain decisions. This dissertation will consider the need for better governance in esports, and if it should be controlled by publishers with the support of existing organisations or the formation of national governing bodies as grassroots competition continues to grow. ii Table of Contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... iii Table of Figures ......................................................................................................... v Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ vi Chapter 1: Introduction and Research Gap ............................................................... 7 1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 7 1.2 The Existing Landscape of Esports Governance ............................................. 7 1.3 The Existing and Potential Issues Facing Esports Governance ....................... 8 1.4 Sport Governance vs Esports Governance ...................................................... 9 Chapter 2: Research Question and Methodology .................................................... 11 2.1 Research Question and Objectives ............................................................... 11 2.2 Methodology .................................................................................................. 11 Chapter 3: The Standardisation and Evolution of Governance in Sport ................... 13 3.1 Background of Governance in Sport .............................................................. 13 3.2 The Evolution of Governance in Sport ........................................................... 14 Chapter 4: Esports and Sport “The Right to Govern”............................................... 16 4.1 Sports “The Right to Govern .......................................................................... 16 4.2 Esports “The Right to Govern” ....................................................................... 16 Chapter 5: Early Governance in Esports ................................................................. 19 5.1 KeSPA (Korean Esports Association) ............................................................ 19 5.2 British Esports ............................................................................................... 20 Chapter 6: The Evolution of Governance in Esports ............................................... 22 6.1 World Esports Association ............................................................................. 22 6.2 Esports Integrity Commission ........................................................................ 25 6.3.1 International Esports Federation (IESF) .................................................. 28 6.3.2 Global Esports Federation (GEF) ............................................................ 29 Chapter 7: The Next Step for Esports Governance ................................................. 31 7.1 International Esports Association and National Governing Bodies ................. 31 7.2 A FIFA Model ................................................................................................ 32 7.3 Network Administration Organisation (NAO) .................................................. 33 iii 7.4 The Continuation of Existing Governance Organisations ............................... 33 7.5 The Best Direction for Esports Governance ................................................... 34 Chapter 8: Conclusion ............................................................................................ 35 References ............................................................................................................. 37 Appendices ............................................................................................................. 49 Appendix A: Ethics Approval ............................................................................... 49 Appendix B: Data Sources .................................................................................. 55 iv Table of Figures Figure 1……………………………………………………………………………...………19 v Abbreviations COD: Call of Duty CS:GO: Counter-Strike Global Offensive DCMS: Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport EEF: Europe Esports Federation ESIC: Esports Integrity Commission GEF: Global Esports Federation GEO: Global Esports Organisation IEA: International Esports Association IeEF: International Esports Federation IOC: International Olympic Committee ISF: International Sports Federations KeSPA: Korea Esports Association LOL: League of Legends NGB: National Governing Body UKeSA: United Kingdom Esports Association WESA: World Esports Association vi Chapter 1: Introduction and Research Gap 1.1 Introduction Due to the rapid growth of esports over the last 10 to 20 years, it has seen change within the landscape of competitive games and regulation of competitions. It was important to generate a list of keywords to help identify which literature fits under the esports umbrella. Following this technique from Creswell and Creswell (2018), a list was developed including words such as esports, Competitive Gaming, Cyber Law and Virtual Competition. Within the journal article by Reitman, et al., (2019), it highlighted that there was a lack of research being conducted in seven key areas within esports (Media Studies, Informatics, Business, Sport Science, Sociology, Law and Cognitive Science) with only 150 publications across all seven areas. It stated that “Esports research’s nascency means there are still fundamental questions about how the field is unfolding” (Reitman, et al., 2019, p.49). This is a worrying trend developing around the research of esports considering that it is projected to be an industry worth billions of dollars by 2023 (Soto Reyes, 2019). With the continued classification of esports as a sport around the world, it would ultimately bring more litigation from and against a number of stakeholders in the industry (Kaburakis, et al, 2017). Within existing literature, there has been an evaluation of how esports governance and ecosystem could be subject to litigation. It is only until recently that more legal cases such as McLeod v. Valve Corporation (2016) and Okkonen v. Valve GmbH (2020), have highlighted the rapid growth of litigation within esports. The purpose of this paper is to review the current governance that occurs in esports and to understand if a system could be developed to protect stakeholders. 1.2 The Existing Landscape of Esports Governance In recent years, there has been a large injection of funds within esports and has seen academics evaluate if the current governance models are able to support stakeholders. Rogers (2019) highlights that ‘Governance also begs the question of how much involvement if any, lawmakers should have’. Research on this issue weights up both self-regulation, global governances and government intervention. Further research needs to document how each governance model would impact stakeholders within the esports ecosystem from the team, tournament organisation, players and 7 fans. Within Rogers (2019) it gives an evaluation of the current landscape of the esports scene in the context of member associations and what publishers do in enforcing decisions. The research, however, lacks any consideration of lawmaker influence or government intervention. Research in the growth of esports looks at the first wave of litigation against publishers and the impact on the ability to regulate. The research conducted by Holden, et al (2017) uses the systematic review to