Article

Over the past three or four years, there has been much discussion and negotiation over the place of esports—both as sports, and as acceptable sports—on the Olympic program. In this short time, many actors have shifted position, and the terminology (what, exactly, count as esports?) has become confused. In this article, I will try to set out the debates as they relate to the Olympic Games, chart the terminological terrain, and suggest some proposals for the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to consider as they develop their own policies on the topic.

Listen to a podcast with Jim Parry about this article

Hitherto, the most popular esports have been first-person shooter or war strategy games which have been seen by the IOC as ethically problematic from the start.[1] More recently, however, we see a sustained effort on the part of international sporting federations—notably, FIFA, the world governing body of soccer—to employ computer-game versions of their sport in the interests of ‘growing’ their sport, in terms of increasing the ‘engagement’ of fans, and providing new sources of income by monetizing identity rights.

My question asks whether esports might (or should) be at the Olympics. My answer is: obviously not. But it is a bit more complicated than that. In a previous article, E-sports are not sports, I argued that those ‘most popular’ esports do not count as Olympic-type sports, which are defined as “institutionalised, rule-governed contests of human physical skill.”[2] I explicitly left out of consideration the status of other kinds of computer games because I was most concerned with those games that are currently most popular, that are currently being touted as sports, and that are currently seeking the recognition of various agencies (visa issuers, universities, mega-sport event organizers, media outlets, etc.) as sports. In particular, given my definition of sport as ‘Olympic’ sport, I was especially concerned with those computer games whose owners are currently seeking the recognition of the IOC as Olympic sports, such as League of Legends and FIFA 21.

The conclusion of the previous article was that sedentary competitive computer games such as these do not count as Olympic-type sport on the grounds that: they are inadequately ‘human’; they lack direct physicality; they fail to employ decisive whole-body control and whole-body skills, and cannot contribute to the development of the whole human; and because their patterns of creation, production, ownership and promotion place serious constraints on the emergence of the kind of stable and persisting institutions characteristic of sports governance.

The aspirations of esports to gain admission onto the Olympic program therefore fail at the first hurdle, since the answer to the question: ‘are they Olympic-type sports?’ is ‘no.’ Claims as to their popularity with youth, their similarities with sports (in terms of training, preparation, physical demand, spectatorship, etc), their institutionalization, and their ethical status, are all beside the point. If esports are not sports to begin with, other considerations are otiose. Too often, discussion of, for example, surfing, break-dancing or esports begins with descriptions of their popularity and their appeal to youth, but these are second-hurdle issues. The logically prior question to be answered before considering their popularity with the youth demographic is: are they sports? The same applies to the ethical objections of the IOC regarding the unacceptable violence in some computer games. Those objections may well hold, but conceptual objections about whether esports are sports come first.

Remember, the question ‘are they Olympic-type sports?’ is just the first hurdle. There are hundreds of Olympic-type sports that do clear the first hurdle yet for various reasons have never been, and remain unlikely ever to be, accepted on to the Olympic program, such as lacrosse, jai alai, sepak takraw, or croquet. Thus, the esports question should be recognized as not just a question about esports, but rather as also about the competing claims of many sports that have already been recognized by the IOC as Olympic-type sports.

To see where esports fits into the conversation about the Olympic program, let us begin by dispensing with three poor arguments for the status of esports as sports: The Argument from Resemblance, the Argument from Recognition, and the Argument from Acceptance.

The Argument from Resemblance

There are those who wish to assert that sport is religion, or that sport is drama. Often, their tactic is to try to show resemblances between sport and religion, or sport and drama. Such arguments assert resemblances such as: sports fans ‘worship’ their stars, Wembley is a ‘cathedral’ of football, we ‘pray’ for victory, we have ‘faith’ in our team; so, sport is a kind of religion. However, it seems that such arguments from resemblance show at best only that sport has similarities to religion; not that sport is a religion. Again, sport may resemble drama, and may exhibit dramatic qualities; but this does not mean that watching the Cup Final is the same as watching Othello. Such arguments from resemblance often fail to account for the relevant dissimilarities.

Similarly, it is often suggested that, because esports bear some resemblance to some quality or characteristic that has been attributed to sport (by someone, somewhere, at some time), this is evidence that esports are sports. Here are some ‘resemblance’ examples. It is claimed that esport is just like sport, because:

• The esport ‘athlete’ must train, prepare, be fit for the game, etc.
• Esport stars are as famous as sports stars
• The industry is a signatory to the WADA Code.
• It has the same social mission as Olympism – how to engage people in physical activity?
• Esports encourage family relationships – gaming with the children brings closeness
• There is a global community, affording a sense of connectivity.
• Gaming takes place in special social spaces/environments.
• There are mass-spectator competitions, echoing sports festival rituals[3]

Even “representatives of the Olympic Movement” echo these claims. At the 6^th Olympic Summit, it was agreed that “Competitive ‘eSports’ could be considered as a sporting activity, and the players involved prepare and train with an intensity which may be comparable to athletes in traditional sports.”[4] IOC President Bach also seems to acknowledge that professional preparation and esports competition imposes comparable physical demands and requires similar concentration, quick reactions, and tactical understanding as traditional sports.[5]

Some of the above claims are highly questionable. But, even if we allow the claims of resemblance, none of them contributes to an argument showing that esports are sports – they can only show that esports resemble sports in some way. However, there are also very many non-sport activities that bear some resemblance to some quality or characteristic that has been attributed to sport. Many non-sports also resemble sports, too. For example, mass-spectator competitions echo non-sport festivals. They look like a rock concert or a WWE Smackdown event, the latter of which is also not a sport, but rather a kind of soap-opera entertainment in the form of non-competitive ‘wrestling.’[6]

Sometimes, the resemblance ploy takes an ‘alignment’ form: the claim here is that, in future, all sport will become esport, because esport will ‘align’ with sport, through processes such as ‘gamification,’ which will change spectators’ experience of sport. Firstly, the spectator experience will be transformed – for example, the use of drones, allowing us to experience sport from the perspective of the drone. (But how does the ‘gamification’ of the experience of sport change sport into esport?)

Secondly, gamification may provide exercise and health benefits by ‘aligning’ sport with gaming. For example, the computer game ‘Zombies, Run’ incentivizes running (by running away from zombies). (But this kind of running is not sport). Sport, health, and gaming, it is claimed, all come together to create new ways of exercising.[7] (But this is mere exercise, not sport.)  

Resemblance-claims are an inherently weak form of argument. To show that A resembles B is a far shout from establishing that A is a kind of B. That is to say, any such resemblance-claim requires further justification if it is to do any work – the claimant is asserting that some resemblance is significant.

The Argument from Recognition

Sometimes it is suggested that the recognition of esports as sports by some ‘official’ organization is evidence of the growing status of esports, and will support the wider acceptance of the idea of esport as sport. For example, there are many examples of ‘government recognition,’ evidenced by the issuing of official documents such as visas.[8]

Then there is recognition by sports authorities, such as sports ministries. “Esports recognised as official sport by Pakistan,” shrieks the headline.[9] However, we should note that Pakistan also recognizes chess, billiards and snooker, caving, mountaineering, and motorsport, all of which are just as unlikely to find themselves at the Olympics, since they are not Olympic-type sports.[10] Of course, like other Sports Ministries, the Pakistan Sports Board also recognizes many sports that, although they are unlikely to find a place on the Olympic program, are Olympic-type sports, such as sqay, gulli danda, kabbadi and tent-pegging. The point is: recognition by some government department or some sports organization does not confer Olympic sport status on an activity.

The same applies to the practices of academia, both in its policies regarding both sport and the study of sport. With respect to sport itself, University Sport New Zealand has held an Esports Challenge Series “after a recent boom in esports in the nation, which is now part of many university sport programmes worldwide.”[11]  However, whilst this media report mentions League of Legends and ‘fighting games,’ there is no mention of sport in the report, but rather a focus on jobs in gaming development, promotion, and operations. It remains unclear what this has to do with ‘sports’ departments, as opposed to sports management departments.

With respect to the study of sport, it appears that conceptual issues get short shrift from some voices in the sports management field. For example, Heere argues that, “regardless of whether e-sports qualify as sports, they should be examined in sport management because they are a manifestation of sportification.… As the sport industry itself is embracing e-sports as a sport, scholars should embrace e-sports.”[12] Heere’s conclusion suggests that sports managers will manage anything that aggrandizes their profession, whether or not it really is a sport; and that it is against their interests to do too much thinking about what sport actually is.

Finally, it might even be thought that the IOC in a sense ‘recognizes’ non-Olympic sports as sports. Indeed, since 1995 the IOC has had a category of ‘mind sports,’ including chess and bridge.[13] But it would be a mistake to read too much into this, because this kind of recognition is two-edged: it includes mind sports in the general category of sports-and-games in order to exclude them as Olympic sports—that is, as activities that might ever find themselves on the Olympic Games sports program. So, even if the IOC were in a sense to ‘recognize’ esports as a special category of ‘sport,’ this would not argue in favor of their inclusion on the Olympic program; rather, it would betoken their recognition as non-Olympic sports.

The Argument from Acceptance (Esports ‘at’ the Olympics?)

Sometimes it is suggested that the ‘acceptance’ of esports by some sports organization is a significant development, and that their appearance at various Games venues as demonstration sports, or as separate but parallel events, is evidence of such acceptance.

“Esports is coming to the Olympics after all” exclaims a headline, announcing the acceptance of the possible roles of electronic applications at the 2024 Paris Olympic Games. Read on, though, and we are told that: “While esports will not officially be on the programme at the 2024 Olympics in Paris, organisers last week revealed ‘virtual and connected’ events will be organised alongside sporting competitions.”[14] So, despite the early optimism of esports promoters for Olympic inclusion, those ambitions have had to be muted and downplayed.[15]

When addressing the question whether esports might (or should) be at the Olympics, I interpreted the question as ‘whether esports might (or should) find a place on the Olympic (Sports) program.’ However, there are other ways to interpret the phrase (the operative word here is ‘at’): McDonalds might be said to be ‘at’ the Olympic Games, in that it has a presence on Olympic sites and at Olympic events, as a TOP sponsor. Art used to be ‘at’ the Olympic Games, in that the Summer Games included an Arts Program in addition to a Sports Program, and medals were awarded for both.

I was assuming that the question was whether esports might be ‘at’ the Olympic Games in some more substantial sense, such as being on the Olympic program—not that esports might be ‘at’ the Olympics in virtue of some commercial connection (as with McDonald’s), nor even that ‘parallel’ esports competitions might be held (as with the Arts). McDonald’s has nothing to do with sport, and the arts competitions were separate from the sports competitions. No, for esports to be ‘at’ the Olympics means for me: will esports ever be officially on the Olympic program. Isn’t that what all the fuss is about?

Similarly, Morgan teases us with his report that ‘esports is coming to the Olympics’: “‘virtual and connected’ events will be organised alongside sporting competitions, … increasing engagement opportunities for fans and spectators.” This includes the possibility of ‘virtual’ sports events (not on the Olympic program), and a ‘connected’ mass participation marathon event over the official course, on the same day as the Olympic marathon. These seem to be exciting developments, promising to enhance our experience of the Games, and to realize the slogan of Paris 2024: “made for sharing.”[16] But the fact that these events are ‘coming to the Olympics’ are not evidence that esports will (ever) be accepted on the Olympic program – it doesn’t mean that they will be ‘at’ the Olympics in that sense.

Esports have, however, been accepted as a medal event for the 2022 Asian Games.[17] It is understandable that this would happen here first given the popularity of esports in Asia and the close connections of those with investments in esports and those in sports administration.[18] However, I believe that, when the organizers come to understand the ‘new’ IOC rationale, discussed in the next section, they will come to regard their acceptance of esports on their sports program as a blunder. I predict that they will rapidly move towards an exclusion of ‘esports gaming,’ and will replace them with ‘virtual sports.’

Olympic Summits, Esports, Virtual Sports and Gaming

Now let us move to a consideration of ‘official’ Olympic perspectives on the issue.

At the IOC’s invitation, “leading representatives of the Olympic Movement met in Lausanne on October 28, 2017 for the 6th Olympic Summit.” They discussed several topics, including for the first time “the rapid development of what are called ‘eSports,’ and the current involvement of various Olympic Movement stakeholders.” They agreed that:

• ‘eSports’ are showing strong growth, especially within the youth demographic across different countries, and can provide a platform for engagement with the Olympic Movement.
• Competitive ‘eSports’ could be considered as a sporting activity, and the players involved prepare and train with an intensity which may be comparable to athletes in traditional sports.
• To be recognized by the IOC as a sport, the content of “eSports” must not infringe on the Olympic values.
• A further requirement for recognition by the IOC must be the existence of an organization guaranteeing compliance with the rules and regulations of the Olympic Movement (anti-doping, betting, manipulation, etc.).

The Summit asked the IOC together with General Assembly of International Sport Federations (GAISF) in a dialogue with both the gaming industry and players to explore this area further and to come back to the Olympic Movement stakeholders in due course.[19]

Whereas the 6th Olympic Summit considered “The development of ‘esports,’” the 9th Olympic Summit held in Lausanne on December 12, 2020 continued the discussion under the heading of “Virtual Sports and Gaming,” in a report presented by David Lappartient, Chair of the Esports and Gaming Liaison Group.[20] The change of title indicates the emergence of important conceptual distinctions and a significant change of emphasis. Notice that we already have three terms in play: Esports, Gaming, and Virtual Sports. However, from this point on, the term ‘Esports’ is not mentioned again (but, rather, ‘Gaming’).

A significant distinction is made between Virtual Sports and Gaming—significant enough for the IOC to consider support for virtual sport in the coming Olympic programs and not for gaming. However, neither term is defined, and only minimally clarified, so we must attempt a reconstruction of the rationale employed.

Virtual Sports are of two distinct kinds: physical and non-physical. Physical virtual sports (such as stationary cycling on the platform Zwift) seem to require ‘direct physicality,’ akin to real sport; whilst non-physical virtual sports (such as ice hockey on EA Sports NHL 21) do not. Significantly, this concedes the point that non-physical virtual sports are, after all, just computer games, with sport as their content. On this account, non-physical virtual sports are not sports.[21]

Gaming is also of two distinct kinds: competitive (such as League of Legends) and casual (such as Super Mario).

These distinctions raise several questions, as we interrogate their adequacy:

• On what basis are virtual sports and gaming to be distinguished?
• On what basis are physical and non-physical virtual sports to be distinguished?
• On what basis are competitive and casual gaming to be distinguished?
• Across the various ‘virtual’ activities, what does ‘virtual’ mean?
• And what is the future of ‘virtuality’ in sport?

There is room here to address only the first two questions.

It appears that the main distinction, between virtual sports and gaming, has been made based on content. Virtual sports have sport as their content; but gaming does not. Significantly, this seems to suggest that gaming has no claim to be sport, whilst virtual sports seem to be (in some way or another) connected to real sport.

While physical virtual sports appear to be physically distinct from gaming, non-physical virtual sports, such as NBA 2K21 (basketball), are dependent on typical gaming controls and other hardware identical to that of competitive computer games. The only significant difference between the computer games of FIFA 21 and League of Legends is that sport forms the content of the former. Apart from their differing content, it is hard to see how else they differ.

This suggests that the Summit might have developed three categories, based on the sporting criteria of physicality and competition:

• Physical virtual sport (which is physical and competitive)
• Non-physical virtual sport and competitive gaming (which is competitive, but not physical)
• Casual gaming (which is not necessarily competitive, and not necessarily physical)

The difference between the 9^th Summit distinction and my alternative three-category suggestion can be represented thus:

Table 1

Table 2

The upshot of this is the creation of a category of which cuts across the Summit’s suggested distinction between virtual sports and gaming. I am suggesting that physical virtual sports might well be ‘real sports,’ but that non-physical virtual sports are not, and neither is competitive gaming. The further suggestion is that the IOC’s elision of these distinct categories is motivated by their desired policy outcomes. The recommendations of the 9^th Summit for virtual sports were “for IFs (International Federations) to embrace both the physical and non-physical virtual forms of their respective sports, with a focus on regulating fair competition, respecting the values of sport in these virtual forms, and reaching out to new audiences.” But their recommendations for gaming were to maintain contacts with gamers “as a gateway to promoting physical activity and the values of sport to young generations.”[22]

Thus, the primary area of concern lies in encouraging the acceptance of both kinds of virtual sports by ISFs (because they both have sport as their content, regardless of their category difference). The secondary area of concern aims to bring Olympic values to everyone, including gaming competitors, regardless of games and genres—focusing on encouraging gamers at all levels either to participate in sport and/or pursue a healthy lifestyle. The IOC seems to have developed a policy that seeks to secure maximum leverage for its future association with esports. A three-pronged approach to all computer games seeks to either engage youth with sport (physical virtual sports); or to assist in the promotion and marketing of sport (non-physical virtual sports); or to improve the health and values of all kinds of gamers through Olympic education.

The Quest for Inclusion

The Asian Electronic Sports Federation is at the forefront in efforts to secure Olympic Games inclusion: “We need national teams, and we need NOCs (National Olympic Committees) to recognise the national esports associations if we want to enter the Olympic family,” says its President, Kenneth Fok: “We see entering the Asian Games as the first step for e-sports entering the Olympic Games.”[23] As we have said, esports were a demonstration sport at the 2018 Asian Games, and are scheduled to be a medal event in 2022.

The recently constituted Global Esports Federation (GEF) also has as its goal Olympic Games inclusion. Recently, however, the IOC warned ISFs not to join the GEF. In fact, David Lappartient, President of the International Cycling Union (UCI) and chair of the IOC’s Esports and Gaming Liaison Group (ELG), “has written to all to the summer and winter International Federations telling them they do not plan to recognise any organisation as the world governing body for esports.”[24]

Behind this news snippet is an interesting story. There are two federations competing for governance leadership, since GEF was set up as a rival to the International eSports Federation (IeSF)and there have been others, too, e.g. the World Esports Association (WESA). Since its launch, several Olympic sports have become members of the GEF, including archery, canoeing, karate, modern pentathlon, surfing, taekwondo, and tennis. It will be interesting to see what happens to the GEF, if the ISFs heed the IOC’s strictures.

The IeSF, however, has not signed deals with any Olympic sports and instead channels its efforts into recruiting national esport federations and hosting the Esports World Championship, the organization’s flagship competition where esports athletes represent their national teams. It is therefore styling itself as just another ISF, recruiting national federations. And as its President, Vlad Marinescu, says, explaining the ELG’s edict: no ISF can belong to another ISF.[25]

The Quest for Inclusion also takes the form of obfuscation, as evidenced in Miah and Fenton.[26] Firstly, they assert that there are “compelling reasons for recognising esports as part of the definition of sport,” but they do not actually give any of those reasons. Further, they do not say what they mean by ‘sport’ – and of course anything can be part of sport, so long as ‘sport’ remains undefined. Do they really mean that there are compelling reasons for recognizing esports as Olympic sports (which is what the IOC has just effectively denied)? Well, now it depends on how they will define esports and, again, we cannot find an answer. Facilis descensus Averni – that argument is an easy way to the purgatory of obfuscation.

However, they do offer a quote from Intel, which is worth repeating for the insights it yields.

Intel announced a long-term technology partnership to bring the company’s leading technology to enhance the OG through 2024. Intel technology will show viewers the future of the Olympic Games—where greatness is experienced with Intel True VR, esports reaches a world stage, drones take wonder to new heights and 5G powers a connection that’s faster and stronger than ever. With Intel technology, fans can do more than just watch the OG, they can experience them.[27]

Here, Intel promises viewers an enhanced experience of the Games—a kind of TV on steroids. They promise digital innovations and enhanced digital experiences. However, they also throw in a mention of esports for good measure – presumably hoping that esports will be popularized (and monetized) by their association with the Olympics. There is an obvious elision here – Intel is mixing up the issue of esports inclusion (as sports) with the enhanced digitization of the sporting experience of spectators. The issues are separable—it is quite possible to relish the promise of enhanced digitization, whilst opposing the claims of esport to be sport.

However, whilst Miah and Fenton give many examples of ‘alignment’ and growing ‘closeness’ of the sportsworld and digital developments, and of relationships between companies and various interest groups, it remains clear that alignment and closeness are a long way from integration. Whatever the enthusiastic and wildly hopeful assertions of esports cheerleaders, alignment and closeness in no way entail that “the future of all sports is the integration of esport.”[28] The 9^th Olympic Summit has put a stop to all such fancies, once and for all. It denied the status of sports to the most popular (non-sporting) computer games and denied the status of sporting computer games as ‘physical’ activities. What is left is prey to an obfuscation of the issues—the future of all sports will obviously include the integration of digital developments of some kind but definitely not esports, unless there is to be further conceptual maneuvering and unclarity.

Conclusion

The IOC has made the right calls over the esports invasion issue. It has determined that the major (most popular) esports have little to do with sport, and the 9^th Olympic Summit torpedoed their aspirations to Olympic status. Instead, the Summit championed ‘virtual sports.’ I hope that the reader will forgive my pointing (in self-justification) to the final sentences of Esports are not Sports:

This, I believe, will be the eventual position of the IOC with regard to computer games. Anxious though they might be to capture their share of the ‘youth market’, and keen to forge alliances with new media and new forms of sport consumption, they will not confuse this with sport. I predict that their final position will be: e-sports are not (Olympic) sports.[29]

Vlad Marinescu, President of IeSF, has seen the writing on the wall, and has retreated from any suggestion that there is an easy route to Olympic acceptance, especially for what have hitherto been referred to as esports—that is, computer gaming, with or without sport as its content. He now says that he is “conflicted” over that matter—a nicely balanced ‘political’ position which is, of course, consistent with all possible outcomes.[30]

The final report of Olympic Agenda 2020+5 was approved at the 137^th IOC Session scheduled for Athens, but held virtually, that ended on March 13, 2021.[31] It firmly reiterated the IOC’s disapproval of unethical video games. President Thomas Bach said: “Any game where violence is glorified or accepted, where you have any kind of discrimination they have nothing to do with the Olympic values.”[32] I think that the basis of the rejection of the label ‘esports’ lies partly in its ambiguity (its lack of specificity) and partly because of its present unfortunate association with just those games. Furthermore, it was realized that computer games are not sports, and also that ‘esports’ did not properly describe those computer applications that are deserving of alliances with ISFs and the IOC. World Rowing recently staged virtual Indoor Championships, and FIFA’s licensing income from video games been a major revenue stream in COVID times. But notice the differences in these two examples, as to what they reveal about the ‘virtual’ in ‘virtual sport’—for only one of them (virtual rowing) is a physical virtual sport.

This suggests that Thomas Bach’s remark that virtual versions of sport “will not replace sport as we know it” is both unclear and premature.[33] Just as the term ‘esports’ had to be abandoned, I further predict that the term ‘virtual sports’ will also have to be abandoned, or at least its use redefined. This is because term ‘virtual’ conceals the significant differences between the different types of applications that the 9^th Summit wanted to call ‘virtual.’ In particular, the currently preferred term ‘virtual’ will have to be reconsidered when it is realized that physical virtual sports are real sports, and non-physical virtual sports are not. This issue is pursued in a forthcoming paper: Esports, Virtual Sports and Real Sports.

Acknowledgement

This paper was written with institutional support from Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic (PROGRES Q19).

———————————————————————————————–

[1]Philip Barker, “IOC votes for closer ties with esports but warns it will reject “violent” video games,” Insidethegames, March 12, 2021, https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1105352/ioc-closer-ties-with-esports

[2]Jim Parry, “E-sports are not Sports,” Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 13, no. 1 (2019): 3-18.

[3]All of the above resemblance-claims are to be found in Andy Miah, “In the future, all sports will be e-sports,” https://prezi.com/ih6d_tvsvj6h/in-the-future-all-sports-will-be-e-sports/;  Andy Miah, Sport 2.0 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017).

[4] IOC, Communique of the Olympic Summit, October 28, 2017, https://www.olympic.org/news/communique-of-the-olympic-summit.

[5]IOC Press Conference with Thomas Bach, IOC Media, July 20, 2018, https://youtu.be/PvV0RcpI7a8. Play specifically from 38 minutes.

[6]WWE Smackdown is regarded as non-sport because it involves the wrestlers’ rehearsed and choreographed moves, and because the winners are often known in advance. This makes it a performance, a kind of theatrical entertainment show, rather than a genuine contest. (There is also a computer game version.)

[7] Again, all the above resemblance-claims are to be found in Miah, Sport 2.0.

[8]Paul Tassi, “The U.S. Now Recognizes eSports Players as Professional Athletes,” Forbes, July 14, 2013, https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/07/14/the-u-s-now-recognizes-esports-players-as-professional-athletes/?sh=668e1f373ac9

[9]Michael Houston, “Esports recognised as official sport by Pakistan,” Insidethegames, January 25, 2021, https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1103419/pakistan-esports-fawad-chaudhry

[10]Parry, “E-sports are not Sports,” 6.

[11]Michael Houston, “University Sport NZ opens Esports Challenge Series registration,“ Insidethegames, July 30, 2020, https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1096849/university-tertiary-new-zealand-esports

[12]Bob Heere, “Embracing the sportification of society: Defining e-sports through a polymorphic view on sport,” Sport Management Review 21, no. 1 (2018): 21-24.

[13]Olympic Programme Commission, Review of the Olympic Programme and the Recommendations on the Programme of the Games of the XXIX Olympiad, Beijing 2008, https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_527.pdf

[14]Liam Morgan, “Esports is coming to the Olympics after all as Paris 2024 reveal ideas to improve fan engagement,” Insidethegames, February 25, 2019, https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1075990/liam-morgan-esports-is-coming-to-the-olympics-after-all-as-paris-2024-reveal-ideas-to-improve-fan-engagement

[15]Logan Bradley, “Paris Open To Esports Being An Olympic Sport In 2024 Summer Games,” SportTechie, August 11, 2017, https://www.sporttechie.com/paris-open-esports-olympic-sport-2024-summer-games/

[16]Morgan, “Esports is coming to the Olympics after all.”

[17]Daniel Etchells, “E-sports to become official medal sport at 2022 Asian Games,” Insidethegames, April 18, 2017, http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1049340/e-sports-to-become-official-medal-sport-at-2022-asian-games 

[18] One might even sense a conflict of interest here. See Parry, “E-sports are not Sports,” 15.

[19]IOC, Communique of the Olympic Summit.

[20] IOC, “Declaration of the 9th Olympic Summit,” December 12, 2020, https://www.olympic.org/news/declaration-of-the-9th-olympic-summit; Additionally, these recommendations appear as Recommendations 8 and 9 of the IOC’s strategy ‘roadmap’ Olympic Agenda 2020+5, announced at the 137^th IOC Session of March 10-12, 2021. See IOC, “IOC Executive Board Proposes Olympic Agenda 2020+5 – 15 recommendations,” Olympic-Agenda-2020-5-15-recommendations.pdf

[21]Parry, “E-sports are not Sports.”

[22]IOC, “Declaration of the 9th Olympic Summit.”

[23]Duncan Mackay, “International eSports Federation accepts United States as latest member in attempt to establish itself as recognised world governing body,” Insidethegames, October 29, 2020, https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1072236/international-esports-federation-accepts-united-states-as-latest-member-in-attempt-to-establish-itself-as-recognised-world-governing-body

[24]Duncan Mackay, “Blow for Global Esports Federation as IOC warn Olympic sports not to join them,” Insidethegames, October 29, 2020,  https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1100130/ioc-warn-sports-of-joining-gef

[25]Mike Rowbottom, “IESF President Marinescu claims IOC ruling on esports corrects “ridiculous” situation,” Insidethegames, October 30, 2020, https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1100164/iesf-ioc-gef-vlad-marinescu-olympics

[26]Andy Miah and Alex Fenton, “Esports in the Olympic and Paralympic Games: The Case for Inclusion,” In Routledge Handbook of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, ed. Dikaia Chatziefstathiou, Borja García, Benoit Séguin (London: Routledge, 2020), Chp 15.

[27]IOC, Communique of the Olympic Summit.

[28]Miah and Fenton, “Esports in the Olympic and Paralympic Games,”

[29]Parry, “E-sports are not Sports,” 13.

[30]Rowbottom, “IESF President Marinescu claims IOC ruling.”

[31]Liam Morgan, “IOC approves Olympic Agenda 2020+5 strategic plan at virtual Session,” Insidethegames, https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1105339/ioc-approves-olympic-agenda-20205

[32]Barker, “IOC votes for closer ties with esports.”

[33]Barker, “IOC votes for closer ties with esports.”