INTRODUCTION
In recent years there has been an incredible transformation, in the world of entertainment and competition that has caught everyone’s attention; the remarkable rise of esports. What was once considered a niche hobby has now become a sensation captivating millions of fans and captivating audiences worldwide. Esports, which stands for electronic sports, is no longer limited to dark basements or exclusive LAN parties. It has taken the stage in major arenas, and online platforms and has won over the hearts of players and spectators alike. This transformation has presented opportunities and challenges requiring thoughtful and effective regulation.
ESPORTS AND ITS GLOBAL GROWTH
The rise of esports, or electronic sports, as a globally recognized industry has propelled competitive video gaming from a niche hobby to a widely accepted activity. Esports essentially involves professional gamers and teams engaging in organized and competitive video game contests. Over time, the esports sector has seen rapid growth, pulling in millions of spectators, significant investments, and partnerships with well-known companies and celebrities.[1]
The international esports market has seen extraordinary development, with annual earnings crossing the billion-dollar mark. Esports competitions are now hosted in major arenas, attracting large live audiences, and are also streamed on various digital platforms, providing access to a vast global audience. This skyrocketing popularity has piqued the interest of both governmental and private entities, further propelling the sector’s upward trajectory.[2]
Nonetheless, as the esports industry continues to mature and evolve, the necessity for a detailed regulatory structure becomes more pronounced to ensure its ethical and sustainable progression. The lack of uniform regulations could result in numerous issues, such as the unfair treatment of players, the absence of equitable competition, and insufficient safeguarding of player rights. Hence, studying the regulatory frameworks in place in other countries becomes crucial to gaining beneficial insights that could help shape the global approach to esports regulation.[3]
THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR ESPORTS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES
SOUTH KOREA
South Korea is recognized as an early adopter and champion of esports. The nation boasts a robust regulatory structure that has significantly fueled the expansion and acceptance of esports domestically. Acknowledging the potential of esports as a cultural commodity, the South Korean government has proactively backed the sector through various strategies and policies.
The Korea e-Sports Association (KeSPA) is the main regulatory authority supervising esports in South Korea.[4] As the official governing entity, KeSPA is tasked with conducting tournaments, formulating rules, and resolving disputes. Moreover, South Korea enforces rigid age restrictions for professional gamers, ensuring young esports prodigies’ safety and well-being. The nation’s all-encompassing approach towards player agreements and revenue distribution models has helped to counter player exploitation and cultivate a sustainable infrastructure for esports entities.[5]
UNITED STATES
In the United States, the regulatory framework for esports is somewhat dispersed, involving various parties in moulding the industry’s trajectory. The lack of a central governing authority has resulted in a varied regulatory environment. However, specific significant regulatory entities like the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) and the United States eSports Association have pivotal roles in endorsing esports and fostering its responsible development.
The US pays considerable attention to player welfare, with bodies such as the USA focusing on introducing guidelines for equitable contracts, player safety measures, and anti-doping policies. The approach towards revenue distribution models and sponsorship arrangements differs across leagues and game publishers within the country. Additionally, the US adopts a forward-thinking approach in tackling issues tied to match manipulation and dishonest practices to maintain the credibility of esports contests.[6]
CHINA
China has positioned itself as a major player in the international esports landscape, boasting a vast network of players and enthusiasts. The nation’s regulatory structure for esports is centred around the Chinese Esports Players’ Association (CEPA), an organization actively involved in ensuring player rights.[7]
To protect minor players, China enforces strict rules that limit their professional involvement in esports. Additionally, the country upholds strong intellectual property rights protection for developers and publishers of esports games. Furthermore, China’s strategy to boost the esports sector includes partnerships with conventional sports, incorporating esports into academic syllabi, and receiving substantial governmental backing for infrastructure enhancement.[8]
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF KEY REGULATIONS
The comparative analysis of esports regulations in South Korea, the United States, and China provides essential learnings for shaping the global regulatory structure. South Korea’s unified approach facilitates effective management and safeguards for players, whereas the US showcases a more distributed yet flexible system. China’s focus on grassroots expansion and amalgamation with conventional sports underscores the prospect of a diverse approach.
To devise a thriving regulatory infrastructure for esports around the globe, it is vital to meticulously evaluate the strengths and shortcomings of each country’s approach. The knowledge gleaned from these international instances can steer towards crafting a well-rounded regulatory framework that promotes fair competition, player well-being, and industry expansion, all in line with globally accepted best practices. By addressing the unique hurdles and prospects inherent to the global esports scene, the nation can position itself as a significant contender in the worldwide esports arena.[9]
INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES AND GUIDELINES FOR ESPORTS REGULATION
Learning from global best practices and guidelines is essential for crafting an effective esports regulatory structure. Countries like South Korea, the United States, and China have created successful regulatory strategies, each providing unique insights:
- South Korea’s unified governance through KeSPA ensures efficient supervision and protection of player rights.
- The United States’ dispersed yet flexible regulatory environment signifies the importance of cooperation between industry participants and relevant associations.
- China’s focus on grassroots evolution and amalgamation with traditional sports exposes the potential for a diverse approach to esports regulation.
Other global entities, such as the International Esports Federation (IESF) and the Esports Integrity Commission (ESIC), have also set up guidelines and codes of conduct for fair play and integrity in esports.
THE ROLE OF “THE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF BUSINESS” THEORY IN ESPORTS REGULATION
“The Social Responsibility of Business” theory put forward by Milton Friedman suggests that businesses’ primary duty is to generate profit for shareholders within legal boundaries. However, the theory has expanded over time to include broader societal considerations. In the context of esports regulation, this theory implies that while esports organizations aim for commercial success, they are also responsible for maintaining ethical practices, player welfare, and the integrity of competitions.[10]
IDENTIFYING KEY STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR INTERESTS
Several stakeholders play crucial roles in the esports industry, each with unique interests and concerns:
- Players: The main participants in esports contests, players seek equitable contracts, suitable compensation, and opportunities for personal and professional development.
- Esports Organizations: These bodies manage teams, tournaments, and player contracts, concentrating on revenue creation, sponsorships, and organizational triumph.
- Fans and Viewers: The spectators of esports events, fans have a vested interest in the equitable and entertaining nature of competitions.
- Sponsors and Investors: These stakeholders invest in the esports industry expecting brand visibility and potential financial returns.
- Regulatory Bodies and Governments: Responsible for developing and enforcing esports regulations, these entities aim to ensure a robust and sustainable esports ecosystem.
- Game Developers and Publishers: These entities possess intellectual property rights and have an interest in protecting and promoting their games within the esports industry.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the meteoric rise of esports from a niche hobby to a global phenomenon has brought about exciting opportunities and complex challenges. As this industry continues to evolve, the need for a well-defined regulatory framework becomes increasingly evident. By analyzing the regulatory approaches of South Korea, the United States, and China, different countries can glean valuable insights to shape their esports regulations effectively. South Korea’s unified governance model, spearheaded by the Korea e-Sports Association (KeSPA), showcases the benefits of a centralized authority that ensures fair competition and safeguards player rights. The United States demonstrates the importance of flexibility and collaboration among diverse stakeholders, as entities like the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) and the United States eSports Association work to uphold player welfare and competition integrity. China’s focus on grassroots development and integration with traditional sports highlights the potential for a multifaceted approach that extends beyond gaming.
Author(s) Name: Akhtar Hussain (School of Law Quaid-i-Aam University Islamabad)
References:
[1] Adair C, ‘What Is Esports? History, Top Teams, Revenues and Risks’ (Game Quitters, 18 June 2023) <https://gamequitters.com/what-is-esports/> accessed 17 August 2023
[2] ‘Esports Market Size, Share, and Covid-19 Impact Analysis,, by Streaming Type (Live and on-Demand), by Revenue Streaming (Media Rights, Advertisement, Sponsorship, Ticket & Merchandise, Game Publisher Fees, and Others), by Gaming Genre (Real-Time Strategy Games, First Person Shooter Games, Fighting Games, Multiplayer Online Battle Arena Games, Mass Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games, and Others), and Regional Forecast, 2023-2030’ (eSports Market Size, Share, Value | Revenue Statistics [2030], May 2023) <https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/esports-market-106820> accessed 17 August 2023
[3] Nyström A-G and others, ‘Current Issues of Sustainability in Esports’ (International Journal of Esports, 10 March 2022) <https://www.ijesports.org/article/94/html> accessed 17 August 2023
[4] ‘Korea E-Sports Association’ (Wikipedia, 25 July 2023) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_e-Sports_Association> accessed 11 September 2023
[5] Insider E, ‘Esports around the World: South Korea – Esports Insider’ (Esportsinsider, 11 August 2023) <https://esportsinsider.com/2023/07/esports-around-the-world-south-korea> accessed 17 August 2023
[6] Singh VK, ‘“Issues in Emerging Area of Sports Law: Lex Sportiva”’ (SSRN, 23 May 2017) <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2972059> accessed 11 September 2023
[7] Insider E, ‘Esports around the World: China – Esports Insider’ (Esportsinsider, 11 August 2023) <https://esportsinsider.com/2023/07/esports-around-the-world-china> accessed 11 September 2023
[8] Chen E, ‘How China’s New Regulations Will Impact the Esports Industry’ (Mailmanv2, 8 October 2021) <https://www.mailmangroup.com/post/how-china-s-new-regulations-will-impact-the-esports-industry> accessed 11 September 2023
[9] Qadri O, ‘What Is the Future of Esports in Pakistan?’ (geo super. tv, 22 November 2022) <https://www.geosuper.tv/latest/20223-what-is-the-future-of-esports-in-pakistan> accessed 16 August 2023
[10] LAVARRONI ML (CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS: THE ANALYSIS OF SURF INDUSTRY, October 2019) <http://www.cek.ef.uni-lj.si/magister/lavaroni3569-B.pdf> accessed 11 September 2023
