Institutionalisation in E-Sports PDF

Preview

Summary

Cem Abanazir - Institutionalisation in E-Sports This is an “Accepted Manuscript” of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Sport, Ethics and Philosophy on 02 May 2018, available at www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17511321.2018.1453538 The published version of the article contains chang...

Description

Cem Abanazir - Institutionalisation in E-Sports

This is an “Accepted Manuscript” of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Sport, Ethics and Philosophy on 02 May 2018, available at www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17511321.2018.1453538

The published version of the article contains changes.

INSTITUTIONALISATION IN E-SPORTS Abstract Following its economic impact and rising popularity, ‘e-sports’ has become a theme within the academic debate on sports. The current discussion revolves around the definitions of sports provided by the philosophy and sociology of sports and how in turn, this can be adapted to e-sports. The premise of this article is the analysis of ‘institutionalisation,’ which is claimed to be an element of modern sport. The governance and production aspects of esports will be the main focus where the nature of video games with their fractured production process, the lack of a monopolistic international organisation and its relative novelty will be emphasised. Furthermore, the shaky ground on which the term ‘institutionalisation’ stands will be touched on. It will conclude that the current debate on the recognition of e-sports as a sport may experience certain pitfalls if it does not solve the fundamental problems regarding institutionalisation and ignores the production process of video games and e-sports.

Keywords: e-sports, institutionalisation, video games, governance, stability

Introduction

In 1951, The Nimrod game console was exhibited in Berlin, where the Minister of Trade and Commerce had a go with a simple strategy game that it offered. Following the show, it was dismantled (Lange 2002, 47). Fast forward to 2017, Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, had a keynote address at ‘Gamescom 2017’ fair in Cologne, and did not leave without having a go with Farming Simulator 2017 (Reuters 2017). The difference 1

Cem Abanazir - Institutionalisation in E-Sports between these events is that the latter did not end in the game consoles and computers being dismantled or the video games being deleted. On the contrary, they may end up becoming best-selling products, and the bases for e-sports.

With the help of increased computer literacy and connection capabilities (Seo 2013, 1544) along with the possibility to stream competitions on Twitch (Rosell 2017, 3); the number of spectators, professional e-sports players and financial opportunities have increased within the world of e-sports. Due to these increases, interest in the subject has bloomed within academic world. One of the main points of the academic discussion in relation to esports is whether the practice of competitive video gaming and e-sports might indeed be deemed ‘sport.’ In this context, the approaches offered by Suits (2007) and Guttmann (1978) along with their supporters and critics are heavily referenced. In essence, the debate is based upon the implementation of the theories of ‘modern sport’1 to e-sports.

The present work will concentrate on the ‘institutionalisation’ element of sport which is perceived by theorists as a prerequisite for qualifying an activity as a sport. In that, the institutions fashioning e-sports will be explained, supported by a comparison with the processes encountered in modern sport. The reason for this is that previous academic works, either due to a lack of space, or the relatively small role of institutionalisation in the debates when compared to the elements of the ‘physicality’ of sport, only took cursory glances at the institutionalisation of e-sports. This side of the debate will come to the forefront due to the facts that international e-sports competitions are becoming commonplace and may even have a serious bid to become part of mainstream international sports organisations.

Unlike modern sports, at present, e-sports lack a monopolistic international federation having the duty and power to make the rules for all disciplines of a sport. First, there are various organisations organising international tournaments for various video games. In addition to this, video game publishers themselves have taken the mantle of organising and promoting their own e-sports competitions based on the video games they develop. Finally, like FIFA, licensors may have a hand in organising e-sports tournaments. The uniqueness of the situation (Hallmann and Giel, in press) calls for an approach which takes the differences in the production and governance processes of e-sports and modern sport into account.

2

Cem Abanazir - Institutionalisation in E-Sports In the next section, the institutionalisation aspects of some of the leading theories of sport will be presented. To this end, the current debate surrounding the institutionalisation of e-sport shall be briefly put into context. The third section deals with the production of video games and major e-sports competitions in comparison to those of modern sport. The final sections are dedicated to the consequences of the differences between e-sports and modern sport and their effects on the discussion regarding institutionalisation. The premise of this work is based on the contentions that a threshold degree of institutionalisation for qualifying a game as a sport is hard to judge and that modern sport and e-sports differ in their production processes of their rules. Moving on from the latter, it will be put forth that due to the said differences, the institutionalisation of e-sports may never be in line with the models provided by modern sport. It will also be argued that since e-sports is in its early days; a clear judgement on the institutionalisation as an element of sport may have to wait for a while longer.

Institutionalisation as an Element of Sport

Modern sport stands upon formalisation, regulation and institutionalisation which have close links to each other. Institutions prescribe rules and the rules bring about bureaucratisation in the shape of various processes, where the institution is directly involved in sanctioning the games, the competitions, and their participants. Pfister (2007) states that ‘[f]rom the nineteenth century onwards, the growth of sport was accompanied, and even shaped, by processes of regulation and bureaucratisation, contributing not only to the formation of sports organisations and institutions, but also to the development of different types of sport and sporting practices’ (51). The roles of regulation and institutionalisation have not escaped the attention of sports sociologists and sports philosophers who strive to come up with a theoretical framework as to what sport is and what the elements of sport are. Supporting that, Witkowski (2012) distils various definitions of sport into four major categories that include two separate categories for ‘rules’ and ‘official governance’ (355). In this chapter, leaving the approaches by institutions such as VOCASPORT, the European Union and the International Olympics Committee out of the scope, an overview of various takes on the institutionalisation of sport by the philosophical and sociological studies of sports utilised in the analyses for the ‘sport’ aspect of e-sports, will be provided. It should be pointed out beforehand that the terms ‘institutionalisation,’ ‘stability’ and ‘bureaucratisation’ 3

Cem Abanazir - Institutionalisation in E-Sports are utilised in the literature for depicting organised activities aimed at regulating and administering sport. For the purposes of this article, the term ‘institutionalisation’ shall be utilised as a term covering all three.

According to Suits (2007), the elements of sport are ‘the presence of skill,’ ‘physicality,’ ‘a wide following’ and ‘stability’ (14). An activity is considered a sport if the said elements are satisfied by a ‘game,’ which is defined as an ‘attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs (pre-lusory goal), using only means permitted by rules (lusory means), where the rules prohibit use of more efficient in favour of less efficient means (constitutive rules), and where such rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity (lusory attitude)’ (emphases present) (ibid). Regarding the stability element of sport, Suits appoints coaching, teaching, research and development, criticism and archivism as necessary roles and institutions for a sport (16), while adding that not all requirements have to be satisfied at the same time (17). Even though Suits later recanted from this stance, 2 the fact that it is widely utilised in the literature on e-sports would render it useful for the purposes of this work.

Meier (1988) contends that, while Suits is not alone in his emphasis on the institutionalisation/stability requirement of sports, it is erroneous. This assertion is presented on the bases that not all sport is institutionalised and that regulatory features along with customs and traditions are ‘ancillary to the basic nature of the enterprise’ (15). Meier concludes that ‘any recourse to institutionalization, as an integral, necessary component of the essential nature of sport, is arbitrary, as well as erroneous and counterproductive; consequently, it should be actively rejected’ (17).

Guttmann (1978) has another take on the subject which indicates that namely seven characteristics, ‘secularism, equality of opportunity to compete and in the conditions of competition, specialization of roles, rationalization, bureaucratic organization, quantification and the quest for records,’ distinguish the modern sport from sport in its traditional sense (15). Guttmann, linking the rules of the game and rationalisation, points out that ‘there must be rules of competition’ (40). On the bureaucratisation aspect of modern sport, the role of a bureaucratic organisation, which decides on the rule of games, administers the research (45) and organises championships, is emphasised (55). 4

Cem Abanazir - Institutionalisation in E-Sports In the analysis of the ‘sport’ aspect of e-sports, we can notice the tendency to either apply the definitions and elements that characterise modern sport directly, or to amalgamate dominant discourses or elements into general categories. Jonasson and Thiborg (2010) opted for Guttmann’s definition. In their analysis, they talk about the problems stemming from a lack of success in the organisation of competitions in Sweden, and point to the relative success of South Korea. They also emphasise the absence of a strong and unified international organisation. Nevertheless, hopeful in the future of the institutionalisation of esport; (291) they conclude that e-sports is in the process of adopting the characteristics of modern sport (292). While analysing the organisation of e-sports and the challenges it faces through the example of League of Legends, Rosell (2017) refers to the evaluation of Jonasson and Thiborg (2010), but underlines that the work dates back to 2010 and that in the meantime; League of Legends has emerged as a global phenomenon. It is asserted that at the moment, e-sports satisfy the seven characteristics introduced by Guttmann and the stability requirement put forth by Suits (6). The competitive and normative practices of Riot Games and the creation of international associations are presented as the bases of this assertion. Nevertheless, it is also pointed out that some, but not all e-sports have reached a certain degree of bureaucratisation and rationalisation (12).

Suits’ contention of ‘stability’ as an element of sport is the tool of choice for van Hilvoorde and Pot (2016). They suggest that due to the number of spectators, participants and professional players; ‘in terms of organization, institutionalization, and globalization, eSport has a strong claim to be considered a real sport (17).’ Similarly, in order to discuss whether esports is indeed a sport in its modern sense; Jenny et al. (2016) adopt the characteristics of sport as defined by Suits and Guttmann. In respect to institutionalisation, they amalgamate the contentions of three different authors including Suits. In that, they suggest that institutionalisation signals the development and standardisation of rules, the formalisation of learning of the games, the development of expertise and finally the emergence of coaches, trainers, officials, and governing bodies. In reaching the conclusion that the satisfaction of the ‘stability’ criterion is ‘debatable’ (5) and more time is needed to show some sort of ‘stability’ (14), they take the competitive capabilities of e-sports and its following into account as positive points while counterbalancing them with a lack of stable institutions and thus development and standardisation of rules (13). Funk et al. (in press), in their turn, embrace the concept of institutionalisation as laid down by Jenny et al. (2016), and bring structure,

5

Cem Abanazir - Institutionalisation in E-Sports organisation, institutionalisation and competition to the forefront. Since they utilise a caseby-case approach which determines the satisfaction of the criteria for each video game, their evaluation of e-sports is more flexible.

As can be seen, there is a striking commonality in the literature of Suits’ recantation and Meier’s dismissal of institutionalisation as an integral element of sport, which are often overlooked.3 The contentious nature of institutionalisation itself notwithstanding, the question posed by McFee (2004) ‘what counts as enough stability (19)?’ is relevant for the purposes of this work. It can be claimed that in order to judge institutionalisation in e-sports, an ‘arbitrary’ threshold should be designated in the first place (Meier 1988, 16). The said threshold has to be tested by McFee’s question. Derivatives of the question may be applied to the analysis of institutionalisation in e-sports: would the presence of a monopolistic international organisation regulating and organising all aspects of e-sports suffice? How long should we wait in order to count e-sports as a sport; and accordingly, what would be the starting date for measuring stability (ibid)? Nevertheless, it can be claimed that the most important question is: do said parameters invented for modern sport fit e-sports?

Production and Governance

Production

The present work bases its stance on an assertion similar to that of Schneider (2001) concerning sport (156). Here the ‘game’ is asserted to have two different meanings, which are: a) the ‘instantiation’ of the game and; b) the game itself. The former depicts particular ‘instances’ which come into existence by the moves of players; while the latter points to a set of rules allowing or prohibiting the moves. Applying this framework to video games would result in the game being: a) an instantiation of a video game; and b) the video game itself. If it is assumed that certain ‘instances’ of competitive video gaming might be considered a sport; 4 then another dimension to the ‘game’ may be added with the help of sports economics, which argue that within the context of modern sport, instantiations are ‘products’ (Peeters and Szymanski 2014, 347; Blair 2011, 47). This argument is based on the interdependency of competitors. In order to create a competition they need each other (Blair 2011, 47). Without a competitor, there cannot be a ‘game’, and even if there was one, it 6

Cem Abanazir - Institutionalisation in E-Sports would only amount to ‘shadowboxing’, which would be ignored by the consumers (Gerrard 2006, 31).

It can be stated that in terms of ‘instantiation,’ e-sports is similar to modern sport. It is a product, where the presence of human opponents is required for the production of a ‘multiplayer game’ (Boyden 2012, 453; T.L. Taylor 2012, 87). For example, speaking about one of his earliest e-sports tournaments, ‘Grubby’ Schenkhuizen, an elite e-sports player, talks about the lack of competitors in a tournament, where he advanced to next phase without playing a ‘game’ (Schenkhuizen 2010, 112). Nevertheless, there is a vital difference between e-sports and modern sport, hence the emphasis on the term ‘multiplayer game.’ Whereas playing without an opponent amounts to ‘shadowboxing’ in modern sport, video games provide for the possibility to compete through the comparison of single-player scores and speedrun5 times. Further to that, the comparison of single-player achievements themselves may be seen as the forerunner of e-sports (T.L. Taylor 2012, 3).6

Modern sport consists of rules that give the game its form. The instantiation is based upon the game form. To put it in another way, without a set of rules as a basis, there can be no competition between athletes. In the case of e-sports, the video game too consists of rules, i.e. the code, allowing certain moves but limiting others (Burk 2013, 1554; Ducheneaut 2010, 137; Lessig 2006, 5). However, unlike modern sport, the code also weaves specific rules for the virtual environment; laying down laws of physics and rules for processing data, and creating processes where the code summons images and sounds (Burk 2013, 1548). As to the similarity between modern sport and e-sports, in both cases sanctioned and prohibited moves of a player are provided for by the rule-maker, which has the power to produce and/or alter the rules of the game.7 In line with this argument, within the context of both modern sport and e-sports, I will call the sets of rules providing for a basis for the instantiation, the ‘source.’ Bearing in mind the link between rule-making and institutionalisation unfolded in the previous section and following Szymanski and Ross (2007) who assert that the adherence to fixed-rules implies governance, which, in turn, depicts the relationship between the governor and the governed (616); the governance aspect of modern sport and e-sports will be the focus of this section. In addition to this, for the sake of elaborating on the production process and the source, a review of the characteristics of the producers and rule-makers will also constitute a part of the focus. 7

Cem Abanazir - Institutionalisation in E-Sports The Rule-Makers

In modern sport, the source is created by the rule-making powers of an organisation having the power to lay down the rules of the game. With the exception of competitions and their organisers constituted in accordance with the so-called North American Sports Model, the laws of a sport or a discipline are prescribed by an international sports federation. They are usually associations consisting members from national associations8 whose main duty is the prescription and the maintenance of the rules (Forster 2006, 73); also providing tournament rules for the tournaments they ‘produce.’

For our purposes, basketball would be a good example for both types of organisation. On the international sports federation side of things, FIBA is the one that controls, regulates, supervises, and directs basketball (FIBA General Statutes 2017 Edition, Art. 4.1 (a)). It is an association composed of member national associations and it has a self-proclaimed mission to ‘[a]dopt, formulate, issue, interpret, implement and amend from time to time such rules (including the official rules of the game) and regulations as are necessary for the control and conduct of basketball throughout the world’ (ibid. arts. 1.1 and 4.1 (e)). In short, it lays down the rules of the source. FIBA also organises international tournaments such as The Basketball World Cup and sets the tournament rules. Moreover, through its ‘zones’ (ibid, arts. 17 and 18; FIBA Internal Regulations Book 5 - The Zones) continental, national and club competitions having separate rules are also organised (FIBA Europe Competitions Regulations 2017/2018 Edition). Member national associations have their separate structures. They organise their own national competitions within their jurisdictions. Finally, clubs are affiliated to national federations but are prohibited from being affiliated to more than one national federation for a given sport (Siekmann and Soek 2010, 101). On the so-called North American Sports Model side of things, the National Bas...