Sport Management Review

ISSN: 1441-3523 (Print) 1839-2083 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rsmr20

Embracing the sportification of society: Defining e-

sports through a polymorphic view on sport

Bob Heere

To cite this article: Bob Heere (2018) Embracing the sportification of society: Defining e-sports
through a polymorphic view on sport, Sport Management Review, 21:1, 21-24, DOI: 10.1016/
j.smr.2017.07.002

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2017.07.002

Published online: 18 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2063

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 46 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsmr20
 Sport Management Review 21 (2018) 21–24

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sport Management Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/smr

Review

Embracing the sportification of society: Defining e-sports

through a polymorphic view on sport
Bob Heere
University of South Carolina, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 15 May 2017 In this paper, the author argues that, regardless of whether e-sports qualify as sports, they
Received in revised form 5 July 2017 should be examined in sport management because they are a manifestation of
Accepted 6 July 2017 sportification. Sportification means to either: (a) view, organize, or regulate a non-sport
Available online 18 July 2017 activity in such a way that it resembles a sport and allows a fair, pleasurable, and safe
environment for individuals to compete and cooperate, and compare their performances to
Keywords: each other, and future and past performances; or (b) add a sport component to an existing
E-sports activity in order to make it more attractive to its audiences. As the sport industry itself is
Esports
embracing e-sports as a sport, scholars should embrace e-sports as a manifestation of
Sportification
sportification and examine their negative and positive effect on our industry.
Multi-disciplinary
Sport definition © 2017 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier
Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The question of whether e-sports should or could be qualified as a sport might to some be a cerebral intellectual activity
that is symptomatic of the nature of academic’s ivory tower. In fact, even some scholars who are engaged with the
philosophy of sport would caution others from engaging in such discussions, as sport itself is impossible to define. To cite
McBride (1975): “Philosophers ought not waste their time attempting to define ‘sport’” (p. 4). He came to that conclusion
based on his understanding of sport as an ambiguous phenomenon, and the realization that any attempt to do so would likely
fail. He acknowledged that sport has many different meanings and usages, and as such, attempting to define sport might be
an adverse exercise that limits understanding thereof. Thus, if sport represents an undefinable ambiguous construct, the
debate of whether e-sports are a form of sport is a somewhat redundant exercise.
However, when McBride (1975) made this argument, he could not have foreseen the astronomical growth of the
professional sport industry (Milano & Chelladurai, 2011), nor did he foresee the emergence of an entire new academic
discipline, called sport management, which originated to serve this growing industry, and made its purpose to manage this
ambiguous term that carried polymorphic meanings to different populations. With the rapid rise of the sport industry, the
question of whether something qualified as a sport was not merely an intellectual exercise, but also one that was important
for the legislation of sport as a business activity (Holden, Kaburakis, & Rodenberg, 2017). To sport management scholars, the
question whether something qualifies as sport is of crucial importance, as it is this term that is deemed to separate them from
the parent discipline of management itself.

E-mail address: bheere@hrsm.sc.edu (B. Heere).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2017.07.002
1441-3523/© 2017 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
22 B. Heere / Sport Management Review 21 (2018) 21–24

The heterogeneous origin of the different sport management programs in either physical education, kinesiology,
recreation management, or business schools has further exacerbated the challenge of defining sport. Largely pending on
their academic home, sport management scholars are encouraged to position sport as an instrument for health (kinesiology),
for skill development (education), or for entrepreneurial opportunities (business) among others, in order to find synergies
with their colleagues in associated programs or departments.
In addition, sport management has a need to distinguish itself from its peers in associated disciplines such as leisure
management, recreation management, and hospitality and tourism management. The current discussion of whether e-
sports should be included in sport management discourse is only the latest step in a long discussion of what defines the field,
exemplified by contributions of Weese (1995) and more recently, Newman (2014). On the one hand, scholars clamor for an
open view of what sport management is, and view sport management as an interdisciplinary field (Chalip, 2006). On the
other hand, some scholars argue that sport management can only survive if the sport management domain is clearly marked
and defined relative to other fields, such as management, recreation management, and leisure science (Dustin & Schwab,
2008). As e-sports is rapidly growing within the sports industry, these two divergent views on the definition of sport meet,
placing e-sports at the center of the debate of what defines the sport in sport management.
The struggle to define what sport is becomes apparent from the purpose statement of the oldest international association
in sport management, the North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM), in which it is stated: “Members of the
Society are concerned about the theoretical and applied aspects of management theory and practice specifically related to
sport, exercise, dance, and play as these enterprises are pursued by all sectors of the population” (www.nassm.com/nassm/
purpose). In this statement, the founders of the organization commit to sport management as a broad field that embraces the
subject of sport, exercise, dance, and play. Yet, at the same time, they define sport as a construct that excludes exercise, dance
and play, by listing them separately. This dichotomy has been at the heart of an ongoing debate of what is or is not sport
management (resulting in the contributions in this issue on whether e-sports qualifies as one). When the European
Association for Sport Management (EASM) was established eight years later, the founders decided to leave the term sport
undefined and merely acknowledged that scholarship should focus on sport management in “the broadest sense” (www.
easm.net/what-is-easm). Two years later, when the Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand (SMAANZ)
was established, founders left the term sport management undefined altogether. As such, the major continental associations
have not taken a firm position on the definition of sport within sport management, leaving open the debate on where the
boundaries for the field are. I contend that over the last few decades, these boundaries have even been further obfuscated by
the enormous growth of the popularity of sport in our society, which has introduced a plethora of new activities that might
qualify as sport. Moreover, society has been inundated with organizations that place non-sport activities in a sport format,
even further obscuring the boundaries of sport.
This issue did not escape some of the pioneering sport management scholars, and was discussed at the first EASM
conference in a presentation by the sport pedagogy scholar Crum (1993), which forms the foundation for my thesis. He
introduced the term sportification to the field of sport management. His presentation was based on the book he wrote in
1991, in which he detailed how society was slowly becoming more sportified. He proposed this notion of sportification based
on the work of Elias (1971), who viewed the construct as one of the forces of the civilizing process that started in the 18th
century. Crum (1991) argued that in the modern post-industrial era, values have shifted toward a great importance of
emancipation, freedom, creativity, self-development, self-realization, hedonism, and emotionality, and within this changing
value system, sport and play are ideal domains to pursue those values. Within this post-industrial society, a bigger emphasis
has been placed on sports, and has caused a sportification of non-sport activities. This trend started in the 18th century, with
the sportification of play and recreation, and resulted in the modern sport industry, yet has expanded over the last half
century to include sportification of other aspects of society, such as entertainment, business, sexuality, fashion, music, and
even policy development and politics.
In his book, Crum (1991) explored the consequences of this trend for the policy making process of Dutch sport
organizations, and argued for defining sport in the tradition of Wittgenstein (1922), who stated that sport should be defined
through its usage. As such, Crum (1991) argued, similar to McBride (1975), that sport can be espied as a large family, in which
members of the family might be related, but that is open to adoption of others, which serves as a metaphor for the
polymorphic nature of sport. For each of these usages of sport, the organization that is developing policy in regards to the
sport in question needs to consider the usage of the sport in their own context.
By way of example, governmental entities concerned with the health of the population should define sport as an
instrument that increases the health and value sport activities on their ability to fulfill that purpose. For these entities,
activities such as chess, poker, e-sports, and even low intensity traditional sports, such as baseball, might (or should) not
qualify as a sport to them, as the return on the investment might be non-existent or low. They also should consider who the
beneficiaries of their programming and funding are (healthy competitive athletes vs. non-active overweight individuals),
and consider the context of the sport. Vice versa, organizations seeking to increase community engagement through sports
and focus on the formation of social capital might focus on such low intensity activities, or higher intensity activities within a
non-competitive environment, as it allows for more interaction during the activity. Media companies, sponsors, and
technology-oriented companies should be receptive of new trends, such as e-sports, as it allows them to reach a new
audience or provide new products. Acceptance of sport as a polymorphic phenomenon allows for agreement of
disagreement on what it means, depending on the purpose its serves. Each organization could then formulate its own
definition of the term, which best serves its own purposes.
 B. Heere / Sport Management Review 21 (2018) 21–24 23

To think that sport management scholars are in control of what should or should not be defined as sport, is an illusion. E-
sports are regarded by many as a sport, including the Olympic Council of Asia (Dempsey, 2017), professional sport
organizations (Wolf, 2017), the media (ESPN, TBS, etc.), many different governments (who has recognized e-sport
participants as athletes Tassi, 2013), a variety of Collegiate Athletics Departments in the United States that have started
varsity e-sport teams, and most importantly, the youth (Nagel & Sugishita, 2016). Within sport management, many scholars
have taken an interest in e-sports and are examining how it fits into scholarly discourse (Holden et al., 2017; Jenny, Manning,
Keiper, & Olrich, 2016; Jonasson & Thiborg, 2010; Lee & Schoenstedt, 2011; Nagel & Sugishita, 2016; Seo & Jung, 2016, among
others). They all have embraced the phenomenon of e-sports, and I contend that it falls outside the purview of sport
management scholars to decide what or what does not qualify as a sport. Instead, it is their responsibility to embrace these
manifestations of sportification as part of our academic discourse, thereby allowing for examination and evaluation of how
these activities affect the discipline, and more importantly, our society. Thus, I offer the following definition of sportification:
Sportification means to either: (a) view, organize or regulate a non-sport activity in such a way that it resembles a sport
and allows a fair, pleasurable, and safe environment for individuals to compete and cooperate, and compare their
performances to each other, and future and past performances; or (b) add a sport component to an existing activity in
order to make it more attractive to its audiences.

Examples of sportification1 are everywhere, ranging from placing musical and artistic performances in a sport format,
such as the Eurovision song festival, and television shows such as “The Voice” and “You’ve Got Talent,” to ESPN’s decision to
showcase contests such as the National Spelling Bee and poker, to the emergence of Crossfit, which places workouts in a
competitive setting. Moreover, entertainment companies are not the only entities exploring the boundaries of what they can
sell as sport, as other entities use sport in their own goal fulfillment by exploring the concept of Sport for Development, in
which sport is viewed as “a conduit to achieving wider development outcomes rather than an end in itself” (Schulenkorf,
2017). The emergence of sport for development within sport management has allowed for a more synergetic view of sport
management that searches for ways in which the management of sport can help non-sport organizations achieve their goals.
In this line of research, sport is either seen as a hook to bring in people or as an integral part of a larger program, which is
referred to as sport-plus (Sherry, Schulenkorf, & Chalip, 2015). In both approaches, sport serves as a sauce that makes the
vegetables eatable. Because of its aspirational nature, and because it mostly still uses traditional sports, the field of sport
management has been quick to embrace this form of sportification (see Special Issue in Sport Management Review, February
2015). Yet, scholars have been less forthcoming in accepting other forms of sportification in the entertainment industry, in
particular the manifestation of e-sports. This might have to do with the notion that many see sport seen as a virtue, while e-
sports is seen as a vice (Jonasson & Thiborg, 2010), yet this proposition is still to be empirically tested. Sport could be both a
virtue and a vice (Chalip, 2006), and research into e-sports might find the same dichotomy. Prior to this scholarly exchange,
none of the journals connected to the continental associations in sport management (Sport Management Review,Journal of
Sport Management, and European Sport Management Quarterly) have published an article on e-sports, or placed in the e-sports
setting.
If sport management is to remain relevant, scholars cannot afford to institutionalize perceptions of what sport is; instead,
they need to continue to evolve and embrace new forms of sport or manifestations of sportification. More importantly, sport
management researchers need to embrace the polymorphic nature of sport and let scholars explore their own synergies
between sport and relevant disciplines, and define sport on their own terms. The main argument against e-sports as a sport
seems to be its lack of physicality. While this might seem a strong argument for those sport management scholars who focus
on health (e.g., kinesiology, human performance, health), I propose they should embrace the examination of e-sports for this
exact reason. Sport management needs their expertise and knowledge to understand the potential negative effects of e-
sports on the physicality of sports. Are e-sports participants more likely to be inactive or obese, or do the sport games, such as
the NBA 2 K, FIFA Football, and Madden Football, actually serve as gateway activities to get the youth more active (or become
fans)? Scholars with a business focus should examine not only the emergence of e-sports itself, but also the effects on the
overall sport industry. The rise of e-sports is connected to the fall of cable (Ananthakrishnan, Smith, & Telang, 2016), which
might have deep effects on the sport industry in many different ways, ranging from media rights, to sponsorship and even
attendance, if sport stakeholders cannot develop revenue substitutes at equal value. I am non-native to the United States and
developed fandom toward US collegiate football through playing the associated video game. Extrapolating my experiences to
others could mean that e-sports are a new component in fan socialization for sport marketing scholars to consider. For
scholars with a management focus, an individual e-sport is actually owned by a company—what does that mean for the
concept of sport, both in terms of success and ethics?
In addition, diversity scholars should embrace this new context to better understand how it affects gender equality and
individuals from different socio-economic background. E-sports should provide an equal playing field for people of both
genders, and their competitions are set up as mixed. Yet, women only compose 30% of the estimated base of e-sports fans
and/or players (Keiper, Manning, Jenny, Olrich, & Croft, in press), and reports have surfaced about women who play, being
bullied, sexualized, and marginalized (Krischer, 2016). A potential starting point for such inquiries could be the study on

1
Recently, Kunkel and Funk (2014) have introduced the term ‘gamification’ to our field, which is an offspring of sportification, and attempts to engage
fans (i.e. non-participants) by offering them a way to participate through some form of game. As such, they are attempting to sportify the fan experience.
24 B. Heere / Sport Management Review 21 (2018) 21–24

gender balance in quidditch, which offers a view of how women and men compete on the same playing field (Cohen, Melton,
& Welty Peachey, 2014). As sports potentially migrate to the virtual reality offered on the Internet, researchers should
examine the effects of such migration on ethical practices in sport participation. Similarly, one of the main attraction points
of sport is its accessibility to all people, regards of class, race, nationality, or gender. Yet, access to a particular e-sport can only
be bought through the purchase of a product, and its effect on the marginalization and exclusion of certain populations is
unclear.
Finally, scholars who are engaged with policy research (particularly those involved in Sport for Development) and
working with young people might want to engage with e-sports as their sport to hook their population. Recently, Cohen and
Ballouli (2017) showed the importance of providing a service that connects with a young audience in their examination of a
sportified version of hip hop dancing in Harlem, New York. As they stated:
This program scheme has seemingly begun to fulfill Coalter’s (2007) “plus-sport” definition of SFD programs, as HHL
utilizes elements of both sport and hip hop culture as a hook to introduce their participants to other HCZ offerings, such as
tutoring, volunteerism, healthy cooking, and resume workshops.” (Cohen & Ballouli, 2016, p. 5)
Their study is an acknowledgement that in certain cases traditional sport might no longer serve as the most effective
hook, and activities such as video gaming, dance, and music might offer equally effective returns on their investment.
Accepting a discussion on e-sports into sport management discourse does not necessarily mean sport management
scholars are supportive of the phenomenon; rather, it merely demonstrates an openness to an examination of it in the field.
Sport Management researchers cannot examine its consequences on obesity (because of lack of physicality), social inclusion,
or its contribution to the professional sport industry if they are not open to examinations on the subject, and are standing on
the sidelines of academic debates. Sport is a polymorphic domain, and embracing sportification as part of that domain allows
for further strengthening of ties to other disciplines. Many universities have made multi-disciplinarity a priority in their
strategies to offer education in the 21st century (Anft, 2017) and sport management, as a context-based discipline, can be at
the forefront of such strategies, but only if scholars pursue these synergies and embrace the ambiguity of sportification.

References

Ananthakrishnan, U. M., Smith, M., & Telang, R. (2016). When streams come true: Estimating the impact of free streaming availability on EST sales. Presented
at conference on information systems and technology, [October].
Anft, M. (2017). Breaking professional schools out of their silos. Retrieved on: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Breaking-Professional-Schools/239937?
cid=cp113. on May 10th, 2017 (April 30th).
Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a distinctive sport management discipline. Journal of Sport Management, 20(1), 1–21.
Cohen, A., & Ballouli, K. (in press) Exploring the cultural intersection of music, sport and physical activity among at-risk youth. International Review for the
Sociology of Sport, 1–21. 1012690216654295.
Cohen, A., Melton, E. N., & Peachey, J. W. (2014). Investigating a coed sport’s ability to encourage inclusion and equality. Journal of Sport Management, 28, 220–
235.
Crum, B. (1991). Over versporting van de samenleving. Rijswijk: WVC.
Crum, B. (1993). The sportification of the society and the internal differentiation of sport. Presented at European Association of Sport Management Conference, .
Dempsey, J. (2017). eSports to become medal event at 2022 Asian Games. Retrieved from: http://www.newstalk.com/eSports-to-become-medal-event-at-
2022-Asian-Games. on May 10th, 2017 (April 24th).
Dustin, D. L., & Schwab, K. (2008). Consider the kirtland’s warbler. Schole: A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 23(1), 1–8.
Elias, N. (1971). The genesis of sport as a sociological problem. In E. Dunning (Ed.), The sociology of sport: A selection of readings (pp. 88–115). London: Frank
Cass.
Holden, J. T., Kaburakis, A., & Rodenberg, R. (2017). The future is now: E-sports policy considerations and potential litigation. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport,
27(1), 46–78.
Jenny, S., Manning, R. D., Keiper, M. C., & Olrich, T. W. (2016). Virtual(ly) athletes: Where e-sports fit within the definition of sport. Quest. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/00336297.2016.1144517.
Jonasson, K., & Thiborg, J. (2010). Electronic sport and its impact on future sport. Sport in Society, 13(2), 287–299.
Keiper, M. C., Manning, R. D., Jenny, S., Olrich, T., & Croft, C. (in press) No reason to LoL at LoL: The addition of esports to intercollegiate athletic departments.
Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education.
Krischer, H. (2016). Closing the gender gap: One e-battle at the time. The New York Times[Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/fashion/
league-of-legends-women-video-games.html on June 15th, 2017 (June 24)].
Kunkel, T., & Funk, D. (2014). Sport fan engagement through gamification in a digital media environment. Presented at the sport marketing association
conference, .
Lee, D., & Schoenstedt, L. J. (2011). Comparison of e-sports and traditional sports consumption motives. The ICHPER-SD Journal of Research in Health, Physical
Education, Recreation, Sport & Dance, 6(2), 39–45.
McBride, F. (1975). Toward a non-definition of sport. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 2(1), 4–11.
Milano, M., & Chelladurai, P. (2011). Gross domestic sport product: The size of the sport industry in the United States. Journal of Sport Management, 25(1), 24–
35.
Nagel, M., & Sugishita, K. (2016). Esports: The fastest growing segment of the ‘sport’ industry. Sport & Entertainment Review, 2(2), 51–60.
Newman, J. I. (2014). Sport without management. Journal of Sport Management, 28, 603–615.
Schulenkorf, N. (2017). Managing sport-for-development: Reflections and outlook. Sport Management Review, 20, 243–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
smr.2016.11.003.
Seo, Y., & Jung, S. U. (2016). Beyond solitary play in computer games: The social practices of e-sports. Journal of Consumer Culture, 16(3), 635–655.
Sherry, E., Schulenkorf, N., & Chalip, L. (2015). Managing sport for social change: The state of play. Sport Management Review, 18(1), 1–5.
Tassi, P. (2013). The US now recognizes e-sports players as professional athletes. ForbesRetrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/07/
14/the-u-s-now-recognizes-esports-players-as-professional-athletes/#300894e13ac9. on June 15th, 2017 (July 14th).
Weese, W. J. (1995). If we’re not serving practitioners, then we’re not serving sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 9, 237–243.
Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. New York: Harcourt, B race, & Company.
Wolf, J. (2017). The NBA and esports: How we got here. Retrieved from: http://www.espn.com/esports/story/_/id/18702213/the-nba-esports-how-got-here.
on May 10th, 2017 (February 17th).