Heidenreich Heiko, Brandt Christian, Dickson Geoff, Kurscheidt Markus
Department of Sport Governance and Event Management, BaySpo - Bayreuth Center of Sport Science, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany.
Department of Management and Marketing, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Front Sports Act Living. 2022 Jun 28;4:869151. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2022.869151. eCollection 2022.
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 within the esports ecosystem by targeting segments of stakeholders. Management, policy and theoretical implications of this key insight are finally presented.
电子竞技游戏发行商的主导地位是电子竞技系统治理与传统体育之间的根本差异。传统体育中不存在类似的对等组织。作为盈利性公司,发行商将电子游戏作为商业产品进行开发和营销,因此拥有独家产权。发行商控制着虚拟体育环境和游戏规则。相比之下,在传统体育中,非营利性协会管理其体育项目,核心任务是通过规章制度、比赛规则和许可证来发展该项运动。然而,也有类似于传统联赛和国家管理机构的电子竞技协会。鉴于此,我们探讨电子竞技协会如何追求合法性。本研究的实证动机源于德国两个电子竞技协会近期出现的具有启发性的案例,并考察了世界电子竞技协会(WESA)和德国电子竞技协会(ESBD)对合法性的追求。该研究基于对55份文件的内容分析以及对相关利益相关者的9次访谈。研究结果表明,电子竞技协会通过将传统体育的现有结构转移到电子竞技中来,依赖于合规和操纵策略。最有效的做法是游说社会和公众接受电子竞技,并为电子竞技发展建立支持网络。虽然发行商基于其产品产权拥有无可争议且被视为理所当然的合法性,但电子竞技协会仍在为获得认可和接受而努力。鉴于传统体育中的既定协会已有数十年历史,它们可能还有很长的路要走。然而,电子竞技协会需要接受发行商的主导地位。因此,它们只能通过针对利益相关者群体在电子竞技生态系统中争取一席之地。最后阐述了这一关键见解的管理、政策和理论意义。