The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2042-678X.htm

Esports, video gaming and their Esports, video

gaming and
fuzziness: a conceptualization their fuzziness

and categorization
Max de Zoeten 99
Institute of Sports Science, Johannes Gutenberg-Universit€at Mainz,
Mainz, Germany and Received 23 October 2022
Revised 13 July 2023
Faculty of Movement and Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, and Accepted 31 August 2023

Thomas K€onecke
Faculty of Movement and Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Abstract
Purpose – The social and economic importance esports has gained over the past decades has led to a quickly
evolving academic interest in the topic. Yet, current perspectives on esports frequently are not precise enough,
too context-specific and/or focus on the question whether esports is sports or not. This means that no precise
structural concept has been provided thus far. Such a conceptualization as well as a categorization of esports
and related types of video gaming are provided in this paper.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper is based on a narrative review considering academic literature
from 2000 to 2021 and publications of relevant esports organizations. The review is conceptually extended by
structural parallels to traditional sports.
Findings – The central outcome of this research is conceptualizing esports as a victory-driven, organized
performance comparison of exclusively human players playing video games in a competitive setting. This
comparison is based solely on the performance achieved during a defined time frame according to fixed rules
with comparably equal team (starting) conditions. This conceptualization is embedded in a general
categorization of video gaming based on structural similarities with and differences to esports. Moreover,
characteristics that were rejected in regards to the conceptualization and the categorization are discussed.
Originality/value – This paper provides a comprehensive categorization of esports and other types of video
gaming based on structural similarities and differences. It is thus of high relevance for academia and sport
management practice alike and can further the development in both fields.
Keywords e-sports, Video games, Definition, Taxonomy
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction
The societal and economic importance of esports has risen drastically in recent years. In 2021,
the industry generated marketing revenues exceeding one billion US dollars (Newzoo, 2022,
p. 34), new financial and spectator records are regularly registered and big new sponsorship
deals are reported almost on a daily basis (Mariot and Nufer, 2020, pp. 5–6). Price pools rise fast
and have reached those of renowned international events in professional sports. In 2021, for
example, the highest price pool for a single esports event was over $40m for The International
2021 (an event for Dota 2). Different esports leagues awarded price pools worth over $10m
(Esports earnings, n.d.a, b). Moreover, popular esports events have become mass events in
terms of viewer ratings (Llorens, 2017, p. 464) and can sell out large sports stadiums like the
Madison Square Garden (Rapaport, 2017). However, on-site viewer figures are small compared
to those that are generated over the Internet: The 2018 League of Legends championship, for
instance, had more than twice as many total viewers as the NFL Super Bowl in the same year
Sport, Business and Management:
An International Journal
Vol. 14 No. 1, 2024
pp. 99-116
Since acceptance of this article, the following author(s) have updated their affiliation: “Max de Zoeten” is © Emerald Publishing Limited
2042-678X
at the “Hochschule f€ur angewandtes Management, Ismaning, Germany”. DOI 10.1108/SBM-10-2022-0097
SBM (205 vs 92,2 million) (Mariot and Nufer, 2020, pp. 5–6). And Newzoo (2022, p. 31) reports 489
14,1 million viewers of esports events in 2021. Not surprisingly, some consider esports the most
rapidly growing form of media worldwide (Hamari and Sj€oblom, 2017, p. 211), and video
gaming has become a profession for thousands of people (Banyai et al., 2019, p. 352).
The drastic rise of esports’ significance over the past decades (Thorhauer et al., 2018, p. 105)
also mirrors in academia as the number of related publications has consistently grown. Lokhman
et al. (2018, p. 208), for instance, note an increase in publications of over 300% from 2014–15 to
100 2016–17. However, despite the examination of esports in a multitude of scientific fields (Reitman
et al., 2020, p. 32), it is still unclear what the term esports actually refers to. Despite “an astounding
number of esports definitions [. . .], all of them are stipulative” (McCutcheon et al., 2018, p. 534).
And even though “‘competitive gaming’ [1] is a widely accepted description of esports” (Reitman
et al., 2020, p. 40), other common explanations take the form of “electronic sports” (Olshefski,
2015, p. 77), or “organized video game competitions” (Pizzo et al., 2017, p. 1). The only consensus
seems to be the use of video games as a medium, which is not precise enough (McCutcheon et al.,
2018, p. 535). Moreover, the lacking precision in meaning is accompanied by a variety of terms
relating to the concept (Bertschy et al., 2020, p. 47). This situation profoundly inhibits the further
development of academic esports research (Cranmer et al., 2020, p. 1).
One reason for this “fuzziness” could be that different publications have often focused on
defining esports through sports. This was typical for early publications after the expression was
first documented in 1999 (Wagner, 2006, p. 437). Esports was described as “alternative sport
realities” (Hemphill, 2005, p. 199) or “an area of sport activities” (Wagner, 2006, S. 439). While
some later definitions still uphold this concept (e.g. Hamari and Sj€oblom, 2017, p. 211), more and
more publications on esports refer to a competition without explicit reference to the term sports
(e.g. Pizzo et al., 2017, p. 1). Nowadays, some authors even extent their understanding of esports
to all kinds of video gaming including some ranking mechanics (e.g. Ahn et al., 2020).
But the tendency to explain esports through sports is obviously problematic as sports
does not have a generally accepted definition either (Holzke, 2001, p. 81). Due to this, different
aspects of sports will be considered in esports definitions, depending on the authors’
intention(s) (Adamus, 2015, p. 16). This holds true not only for academia but also for
organizational practice. Here, the question whether esports is a sport or not is frequently
oriented toward financial or political ends. In Europe, a reason for this can be that public
subsidies and tax exemptions are often granted to activities that are recognized as sports.
Moreover, the question is relevant from a legal standpoint, as can be seen in the discussion
regarding sports scholarships for esports players at American universities (Walton et al.,
2020, p. 94). It could also have implications for governance and management, for instance
when looking at performance-enhancement (Schubert et al., 2022), or for marketing and brand
management, which is evolving as a research field (e.g. de Zoeten and K€onecke, 2023). Finally,
such a recognition is a token of public acceptance that can be considered a value per se.
The aforementioned considerations show that in both academia and organizational
practice, the following seems to be true: “In the end, the demarcation of esports as a sport is
likely to depend on the conceptualization used and the specific context” (Cunningham et al.,
2018, p. 5). Against this backdrop, it does not surprise that the discussion is still ongoing (e.g.
Cunningham et al., 2018; Hallmann and Giel, 2018; Jenny et al., 2017; Kane and Spradley, 2017;
McCutcheon et al., 2018; Parry, 2019; Sauer, 2019; Thiel and John, 2019; Thorhauer et al., 2018),
even though the majority of publications seems to support the notion of esports being a form
of sport (Garcıa and Murillo, 2020, p. 170; Lokhman et al., 2018, p. 208).
But particularly in an academic sport management context, the question whether esports is
rightfully considered sports or not is actually not relevant. This is so because “eSport is
progressively featured in the sporting landscape and [. . .] presents the Sport Management
academy with a series of problems and questions that, while not certainly of a sporting nature,
have direct relevance for the management of sport in the future” (Cunningham et al., 2018, p. 5;
see also Hallmann and Giel, 2018). Vice versa, “[t]he eSport industry faces dilemmas that can be Esports, video
addressed by sport management scholars, educators, and practitioners, thus establishing a gaming and
strong fit between eSport and the sport management discipline” (Funk et al., 2018, pp. 9–10).
Hence, esports is a very relevant topic for sport management scholars and practitioners.
their fuzziness
This is why the aim of this paper is to use a narrative review supplemented by conceptual
work to develop a conceptualization of esports and a categorization of esports and related
types of video gaming. The method will be described in the next section, where it will also
become clear that the conceptual work primarily draws from the fact that there is a basic 101
structural relation between sports and esports that influences the understanding of the latter
regardless of the question whether esports is sports or not (Heere, 2018, pp. 21–24).
Accordingly, this question is not considered, but esports will rather be discussed on the basis
of technical or structural criteria (e.g. human players, competitive aspect). Thereafter, the
categorization of esports and related types of video gaming will be presented, followed by a
consideration of elements that have been deemed irrelevant in structural terms. This
enhances the transparency of the research and enables readers to perceive the findings of this
paper in a more informed way. The second to last section of this paper includes a discussion
and implications. The paper closes with the conclusion.

Method
Selection of the method
The conceptualization of esports and other types of video gaming described in this paper is
based on a narrative review of academic literature and publications by esports organizations.
This review is supplemented with conceptual work considering specific aspects of traditional
sports as a related form of competitive activity. This decision was made after extensive
discussions within the research team because – as has been explained in the introduction –
this paper accepts basic structural similarities of sport and esports as given (Heere, 2018,
pp. 21–24), but does not focus on the question whether esports is sports or not. Consequently,
it was expected that addressing some of these similarities should profoundly enrich the
outcome of the narrative review. The specific steps that were taken in this “extended”
narrative review were the following:
(1) First, a narrative review was conducted regarding the question which central
structural elements of esports could be identified in academic literature and sources
from organizational practice.
(2) Moreover, specific elements of traditional sports were considered and discussed
regarding their relevance for structurally conceptualizing esports. This was done in
extensive discussions of the research team regardless of the fact whether these
elements were explicitly mentioned in the publications included in the review or not.

Narrative reviews
Narrative reviews “are comprehensive narrative syntheses of previously published
information” (Green et al., 2006, p. 103) that are not based on strict and narrow inclusion
and exclusion criteria (Montori et al., 2003, p. 43). Accordingly, they differ from the better
known systematic reviews which are characterized by a fixed review protocol, systematic
search strategy and standardized data extraction (Peters et al., 2020; K€onecke et al., 2016).
However, systematic reviews are designed to answer clearly defined and rather narrow
research questions on the basis of a rather limited number of high-quality studies (Arksey
and O’Malley, 2005). This means that studies that do not specifically address this research
question are excluded from further analysis.
SBM In contrast to more inflexible review types, it is common for narrative reviews that the
14,1 publication search has an exploratory nature in the beginning that becomes more and more
focused as the knowledge on the topic grows over time. This prevents a narrow initial focus
which would make it very likely that relevant literature is overlooked (Greenhalgh et al., 2005,
p. 421). The differentiation between the different phases of the review is also very flexible as
“procedures will be less formal and the reviewers will move back and forth among the search,
analysis, synthesis, and interpretation phases” (Tod, 2019, p. 118). Accordingly, the method is
102 very flexible and allows for extensions, for instance with conceptual work, as it has been the
case in this research. Due to these strengths, narrative reviews “are helpful in presenting a
broad perspective on a topic” (Green et al., 2006, p. 103). This is why they “constitute an
important component in the literature base” (Green et al., 2006, p. 104) and why such a
narrative review was selected as a basis for this paper.

Extended narrative review used in this study

For the narrative review, the following search strategy was used. First of all, literature
searches were conducted in Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCOhost and Google Scholar using
the following search terms: (definition) e(lectronic)(-)sport(s), competitive gaming, digital
sport(s), video game competition, virtual sport(s). The searches were conducted separately for
each year, starting with the year 2000. Based on the linguistic proficiency of the researchers,
only publications in English, Dutch and German were included in the review [2]. As the
searches were conducted up to 2022, 2021 was the last year that was considered to only
include full years. For each year, the first 200 publications listed in each of the databases were
screened regarding their relevance for the narrative review. This was first done by looking at
the title, then by reading the abstract and – if possible – also by using a keyword search in the
full text. All academic books, conference proceedings, peer-reviewed journal publications and
publications with a university affiliation that were identified as potentially relevant in the
databases were screened in this way.
Moreover, publications and websites of esports federations and league organizers were
scrutinized for relevant information. As it is common for narrative reviews, “‘snowballing’
search techniques” (Greenhalgh et al., 2005, p. 421) constituted another step in the search
process. Specifically, this was done by screening the reference lists of the publications found
in the database searches for further relevant literature and by including sources know to the
authors that had not been found using the other search techniques.
When synthesizing the narrative review, the research team extensively considered which
structural elements of traditional sports as a related form of competitive activity should also
be addressed to supplement what had been found in the review. Each decision in this regard
was extensively discussed within the research team and with colleagues who are experts in
the field. Eventually, only those elements were included that all contributors agreed to be
relevant for the conceptualization and the differentiation of esports from other types of video
gaming. Moreover, some examples from traditional sports are used to illustrate certain
characteristics of esports and video gaming.

Conceptualization of esports
Exclusive use of video games
The International Esports Federation has member associations from 74 countries (International
Esports Federation, n.d.a), making it a relevant actor in the field. It defines esports as “a
competitive sport where gamers use their physical and mental abilities to compete in various
games in a virtual, electronic environment” (International Esports Federation, n.d.a). According
to their declared goals – the recognition of esports as sport – they also incorporate the term
“sport” in their definition (International Esports Federation, n.d.b), which has already been Esports, video
identified as problematic earlier on. Their definitory approach, however, integrates the virtual gaming and
space as the one and only location of the competition. This means that esports are to be
performed by exclusively playing video games (also see Fritz, 2014, pp. 403–404; Fromme, 2008,
their fuzziness
p. 169), and esports “always [is] a virtual game, because we do not manipulate the game
elements in the real world” (Esposito, 2005, p. 4). Any measure of performance not solely
incorporating video gaming, like, for example, running an obstacle course directly followed by
the piloting of a virtual car in a racing simulation, cannot be considered esports. 103

Victory-driven performance comparison (competition) in an organized setting

Many authors consider a competitive element to be a central aspect of esports (Jenny et al.,
2017, p. 4). It differentiates esports from casual play or non-competitive gaming (Adamus,
2015, p. 17). Accordingly, “competitive gaming” is sometimes used as a definition for esports
(e.g. Qian et al., 2020, p. 548). Jenny et al. (2017, p. 4), and, identically, Pizzo et al. (2017, p. 1) go
further and refer to esports as “organized video game competitions”, adding an
organizational component. This is relevant because in esports, like in traditional sports,
competition can only arise through some degree of organization (Funk et al., 2018, p. 9).
Accordingly and in analogy with traditional sports, Funk et al. (2018, p. 9) assume that an
esports competition may only arise if the activity – playing a video game – is performed in an
event or another organized way aimed at a ranking that is based on a comprehensive
comparison of performance.
It has to be emphasized that the requirement of a competition as an inherent element of
esports is not satisfied merely by the fact that a participant can score a “win” in one specific
match. As mentioned earlier, it is rather important that the result of one match has a
relevance in a broader sense and can, for instance, result in reaching the next round in a
tournament. The same activity that does not aim at success in a broader sense – and can
thus be conducted without any form of organization – is to be understood as leisure (Funk
et al., 2018, p. 9).
Such an organization can be provided by a league, association (Nufer, 2020, p. 2) or simply
by a host/organizer. It should include components like fixed rules (Gaum, 2014, p. 49), as no
competition can take place without them (Abanazir, 2019, p. 124), a decision-making body as
well as a defined time frame (Jenny et al., 2017, p. 6). In esports, two categories of rules have to
be distinguished: (a) those programmed into the game itself (Juul, 2003, p. 41), and (b) those
not integrated into the software (Jenny et al., 2017, p. 6). Those of type (a) usually are checked
automatically without any need for external interference. Examples are possible actions one
might take during the game or victory conditions. Rules of category (b) normally are not
controlled by the software itself since they usually consist of event-related rules. Examples
are the interdiction of playing a specific character in a MOBA (multiplayer online battle
arena) or fighting game, the use of a specific unit/weapon in an RTS (real-time strategy)/(ego-)
shooter or just some cosmetic option the players may not use.
Sauer (2019, p. 16) states that adhering to game-inherent esports rules does not need a
referee, which is clear as they will usually be of category (a). However, since further external
rules of type (b) may be applied to the game at certain occasions, and bugs or unfair
advantages may occur, referees (or at least some decision-making body, e.g. an administrator)
are needed and usually do exist in esports competitions. Such a need for an impartial party in
esports requires some degree of organization in contrast to other forms of video gaming.
This differentiation can also be found in traditional sports where organized and non-
organized forms exist. Additionally, if the participants are named beforehand – which usually
is the case in esports competitions – there is a need to specify the time (and if necessary and/or
desired, the place) of the competition.
SBM Direct (PvP) vs indirect competition (non-PvP)
14,1 It is also relevant to consider that esports and other video games can generally be divided into
direct or PvP (player vs player) and indirect or non-PvP games (the rest). If played in a
competitive setting, they are comparable to sports with direct confrontation (PvP), in which
participants directly affect their opponent(s) during the competition (judo, basketball,
football, etc.). On the other hand, there are sports in which opponents are not allowed to
(directly) affect others’ performance, such as sprint or figure skating. In the case of video
104 gaming, affecting an opponent should purely be understood in the context of the video game
and not, for example, as pressing buttons on an adversary’s input device.
In a direct or PvP competition, the participating teams simultaneously perform against each
other during a specific period in time (e.g. Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Fortnite, League of
Legends, Starcraft 2, Street Fighter 6 or any of EA’s FIFA titles). The relevant criterion to
determine who wins and who loses is the performance achieved during this time frame. In line
with traditional sports, many of which keep overall records, the winner is always the one who
achieves the best result in a specific competition within a limited timeframe. It is not relevant,
though, if the winner has set a new world record (high score) or failed to do so. This means that
the immediateness of the performance evaluation is a key aspect as well.
In an indirect or non-PvP competition, the performance can only be compared by some sort
of metric, for example, time needed or points achieved. Here, it has to be pointed out that some
definitions exclude a time-delayed competition from being an esports (e.g. eSport-Bund
Deutschland e.V., 2018). However, the exclusion of a high-score comparison does not seem
logical, and it is unclear why a delayed action of participants – analogous to many sports like
figure skating or gymnastics – in a defined time frame (the event) should not be considered
esports. However, what should be excluded is playing for a high score outside of an
event/defined time and with unlimited tries [3]. Additionally, even if two (or more) players
start competing indirectly at the same moment, one might finish first even though the other
one could continue to play while having less points. Such an occurrence may appear through
player-mediated game speed, for which Tetris is but one example. Hence, even if players start
at the same time, simultaneous play for the entire performance comparison does not
necessarily occur. As already stated, this means that esports is characterized by a specifically
defined time frame and not simultaneous play.

Equal conditions and other elements of fair play

Some authors and organizations consider certain elements of fairness to be a central element
of esports. This notion does not necessarily have to be explicitly stated. It is rather frequently
implied. One example is the German esports federation mentioning that success should not
(primarily) be dependent on chance (eSport-Bund Deutschland e.V., 2018). Sometimes, this
implicit link is also provided through the inclusion of sports into the definition (e.g. Hamari
and Sj€oblom, 2017, p. 211; Wagner, 2006, p. 439).
In this context, fairness refers to equal conditions as well as fair play. Fair play, in turn,
generally means good behavior and following the rules (Rulofs, 2017, pp. 21–29; Schubert and
K€onecke, 2014, p. 66). However, like in traditional sports, the fair play ideal does not
necessarily have to be followed in a competition (Hess et al., 2015, p. 16; Schubert and
K€onecke, 2014, p. 66). It is not inherent and presents a more sport-ethical component.
Therefore, in the context of conceptualizing esports, fairness should only be considered in the
sense of achievements that are ideally based on one’s own merit, a central element that
traditional sports supposedly stands for in an exemplary manner (Lenk, 2010, p. 10). Yet, this
type of fairness is usually considered as given if (somewhat) equal (starting-) conditions as
well as rules that need to be adhered to by all participants exist [4].
However, like in traditional sports, fairness does not mean total equality. Different terms
created by the first move advantage in chess, service in return sports or the kick-off in many
other sports are illustrations of this. In esports, it may be fair for two teams to have completely Esports, video
different gameplay options, if these are either the result of tactical decisions made prior to the gaming and
actual video game (which can be seen as part of the strategic process of the competition) – for
instance, the chosen racing car model in a racing game (often offering different specs in terms
their fuzziness
of, e.g., maximum speed and speed of acceleration) – or faction in an RTS – are deemed
balanced, [5] or are swapped to balance the disadvantage (for instance, this is the case at the
halfway point in Counter-Strike). Again, this can be compared to a number of traditional
sports, where players might face the sun for some time in beach volleyball or swap the sides at 105
a certain point in many team or individual sports, such as in baseball, where the teams
regularly switch between playing offense and defense.
Another relevant feature of video games that has to be considered in the context of equal
conditions is the inclusion of an RNG (random number generation). RNGs account for “random
events” or rather different versions of an event occurring during the game. An example of such
an RNG would be the draw of a card in a card-based video game or the sequence of building
blocks in Tetris. Obviously, it is unclear exactly which card will be drawn or in what order the
blocks will appear. It goes without saying that in score-based competitions (single player, which
is one type of non-PvP gaming), all parties should deal with the same RNG to create equal
conditions. In PvP, all players deal with the same basic RNG automatically since they act in the
same digital space, but this does not necessarily result in equal conditions. For example, if one of
the competing teams – chosen at random – gets a big advantage or “boost” (such as large
amounts of additional resources or stronger characters), which the other competitor(s) are not
sufficiently compensated for, this development would be too much of a variance in the RNG-
effect as equal conditions would not exist anymore. Hence, only constantly occurring random
events with a minor effect on the performance should be acceptable in PvP esports. Therefore,
some random events as well as true random events (e.g. slot machines where the player may
only start the game but not influence it) would indeed cede success to chance. This makes these
random events unsuited to appear in esports.
Furthermore, the number of actively participating players – or rather the number of active
player slots – should be equal for all competing teams (during the same phase of play).
Of course, a team may only consist of one player. It also has to be mentioned that the number
of players in a team can change for some time or until the end of the game because of
suspensions or disqualifications – for instance, when a player’s character “dies” in a shooter.
These (temporarily) suspended players, however, still present an occupied active player slot.
Again, this is not only true for esports but also for traditional sport. In football or basketball,
players can be disqualified for the remaining and also following matches. In handball or ice
hockey, temporary suspensions during a match are also possible.
Another relevant aspect is that esports should be a competition between exclusively
human players (eSport-Bund Deutschland e.V., 2018; Hemphill, 2015, p. 346). This excludes
playing versus an AI (artificial intelligence, a computer-controlled player/participant). The AI
referred to here is actively “participating”, simulating a human player. It has to be
differentiated from other types of AI that are integrated in video games which do not present
a participating player (e.g. minions [6] in a MOBA), but rather can be seen as part of the game
environment. This aspect needs to be mentioned for two major reasons: first, in a competition
(performance comparison) between a human player and an AI (e.g. playing chess vs an AI or
playing a racing game vs an AI controlled racer), the performance measured is of a different
nature. The player is measured in terms of his/her performance in the game, while the AI
represents the performance of a (team of) programmer(s) when creating a software prior to the
actual competition [7]. Second, unlike a human player, an AI is neither subject to physical or
cognitive exhaustion nor to mental factors like excitement or stress, which violates the
requirement of (somewhat) equal conditions as well.
SBM Summary
14,1 Summing up, it can be noted that esports consists of playing video games (Reitman et al., 2020,
p. 40) in a competitive setting. Victory or a good rank rather than temporary diversion are central
motivators for participation (Seo and Jung, 2016, p. 643). This entails that esports games need to
show some measure of performance, be it win/lose, time or some score that can be compared (Seo,
2013, p. 1544). If there is no winning or comparison of performance within an organizational unit
(for example, this could be a tournament or a league), it is no competition, and it should therefore
106 not be considered esports. Furthermore, it was argued that esports needs some form of
organization, be it through a league, an association (Nufer, 2020, p. 2) or simply by an
administrator/host/organizer. This is required to uphold rules outside of the software and to make
decisions regarding bugs and time of the competition. Moreover, the core of the concept of esports
is determined by aspects like the irrelevance of direct vs indirect (PvP or non-PvP) video game
usage as well as the exclusion of AI players. Finally, the necessity of equal (starting-)conditions,
clearly defined rules and a fixed time frame for the competition need to be mentioned. Based on
these considerations, the basic structural concept of esports can be explained as follows:
Esports is a victory-driven, organized performance comparison of exclusively human players
playing video games in a competitive setting. This comparison is based solely on the performance
achieved during a defined timeframe according to fixed rules with comparably equal team (starting)
conditions [8].

Categorization of esports and other types of video gaming

Now the question arises, how other forms of video gaming relate to esports (for an overview,
see Figure 1). First of all, there is one type of video game competition that is very similar to
esports but lacks a formally organized structure. This means that an independent control of
adherence to rules or other aspects (fixed time, etc.) that are provided by the organizer is not
given. Nevertheless, this type of gaming has a ranking system that is often embedded in the
game as part of its setup and may be used by the players. A differentiation can be made
between PvP and non-PvP, which is why this type of video gaming may appear in the forms
“competitive PvP gaming” and “competitive non-PvP gaming” (see Figure 1). Specific

Figure 1.
Different forms of
video gaming
examples for such a ranking system could be the game internal rating system in League of Esports, video
Legends or Starcraft 2, which both use a form of Elo system borrowed from chess. gaming and
Yet another step away from esports would be taken if the mandatory requirement of equal
conditions was dropped. One example is the elimination of the use of the same RNG. This is
their fuzziness
only possible in non-PvP gaming. As discussed before, gaming with different RNGs implies
that the basic requirement of a generally equal level of difficulty and other aspects of a fair
competition are violated. Nevertheless, this type of video gaming may be played
competitively and with rather equal conditions. However, the game could pose tasks to the 107
players that are of very different levels of difficulty. This is why we suggest a denomination
as “false competitive gaming” in Figure 1. An example would be playing Tetris (without
additional programming) when different players were given different building blocks in a
different sequence. Hence, they would play the same game, but not under the same conditions.
The same denomination should be given to other video game-based competitions with
unequal (starting) conditions – like a differing number of members of a team – because a fair
performance comparison could not generally be assumed.
Regarding the classifications that have been described so far, it has to be outlined that a
specific video game may fall under each of the categories, depending on which criteria it meets
in the setting under scrutiny. The same is true for the type of play. Speedrunning (trying to
finish a given (portion of a) game as fast as possible), for example, may or may not have equal
conditions for all participating teams in a non-organized setting. For instance, the amount of
tries might be set to a specific number or one might have unlimited tries (which would make it
either false competitive gaming or competitive non-PvP gaming in Figure 1 [9]). Speedrunning
can also be played in an organized setting with equal conditions (which would make it esports).
This means that to determine which category is applicable, not only the specific video game or
type of competition has to be looked at, but also the specific setup in which it is played.
The next structural step away from esports is the absence of a competition that exceeds the
single match. This does not necessarily mean that performance is not compared at all or one
player/team might not win a match, but this victory would have no relevance in a broader sense
(a tournament, championship or league). It does not raise the winner’s rank nor qualify him/her for
another event or round. Here, the participants in the game exclusively play for fun, to kill some
time or for social reasons (Breuer, 2011, p. 6), but not to succeed in an overarching competition.
Hence, the category is – as in previous literature – referred to as “casual gaming” in Figure 1.
So far, we have only observed games that are exclusively conducted digitally. Another
step away from the core concept of esports, the category of integrative activities is also
included in Figure 1. Here, (elements of) video gaming (which could also be augmented reality)
are combined with non-video game-based activities (for instance, traditional games like
Monopoly, catch or even traditional sports), much like, for example, biathlon combines skiing
and shooting. Like video games, these types of games can be considered forms of play after
Guttmann (2004, p. 9) and are the last category considered in Figure 1.
Additionally, we would like to specifically address the topic of exergames (video games
controlled by physical input often meant to serve as a physical workout). First of all, if the digital
component does not present any form of interactivity – which “is central to all videogames and is
referenced in every discussion on the nature of the medium” (Bergonse, 2017, p. 249) – no video
game usage takes place. Therefore, it would fall into neither of the presented categorizations of
video game usage from Figure 1. This would be the case if, for example, the player could only start,
stop, go faster or slower by cycling faster or slower on a cycling machine without any relevance of
the virtual space. Here, the digital element would only provide scenery and essentially be a movie.
If the element of interactivity were present – for example, by making some type of ground only
traversable with a specific speed – the activity could be included into the presented framework.
On the other hand, using a video game and some other measure of performance outside the
video game would fall into the category of integrative activities. An example would be the use
SBM of augmented reality when a “player” would cycle outside and the video game would award
14,1 points for collecting coins and for every kilometer cycled. Additionally and similar to other
video games using a more traditional input (e.g. a controller), an exergame may fall into any of
the remaining categories, including esports. An example could be virtual taekwondo, if the
right framework is given.

108 Non-structural elements of esports and video gaming

Different forms of video games
It should be mentioned that not all video games derive from the same origin. For instance, there
are simulations of “real” games (e.g. board games). Juul (2003, p. 41) refers to this type of video
games as “implementations”. Furthermore, there are simulations of physical activities (such as
football, car racing or flying a plane) referred to as “adaptations” (Juul, 2003, p. 41). “Sedentary
sport video games” – a term used by Jenny et al. (2017, p. 4) describing the digital emulation of
classical sports in video games without (most of) the physical aspect – represent a specific
subgroup of mentioned adaptations. And, of course, there are video games originally
conceptualized and created as such. These generic considerations have not been addressed in
this paper so far but have some relevance for completing the picture. This is so because especially
implementations – for example, chess played versus another human player using a computer
(and optionally the Internet) – look rather like traditional games supported by media devices than
actual video games. Nevertheless, they still consist of a video game, and no structurally sound
reason can be found why they should not be considered esports if they fulfill the structural
requirements from above because the origin of the video game is irrelevant. It can be pure fiction,
a sport or any other activity from the non-virtual world. This generally means that virtual
simulations of non-virtual activities can be practiced in the form of esports or other types of video
gaming according to Figure 1. Their exact classification depends on the criteria they fulfill.

Spectatorship
Another element that has not been considered to be of structural relevance is that of
spectatorship. Some authors see esports as “high-level play and spectating of digital games”
(Hamilton et al., 2012, p. 310) or “[i]nteractive [s]pectatorship” (Freeman and Wohn, 2017, p. 1603).
While some forms of competitive gaming do generate high viewer counts and can be arranged to
have interactive elements such as a live chat or polls (e.g. about the MVP or who the viewers
favor to win), this cannot be considered relevant for the concept as such. Esports may as well
take place without external viewers. Like in traditional sports, competitions can be held with only
some or no spectators at all. In many traditional sports that are not popular spectator sports, this
is rather the norm than an exception even at the highest level. Moreover, aspects regarding
spectatorship frequently accompany the professionalization of leisure activities, but do not
constitute a structural element of the activity as such. Therefore, esports – just as sports – does
not require any audience (Guttmann, 2004, p. 12).

Human-computer interfaces
Hamari and Sj€oblom (2017, p. 211) integrate the human-computer interface mediation as an
aspect in their definition as they consider esports a “form of sports where the primary aspects of
the sport are facilitated by electronic systems; the input of players and teams as well as the
output of the eSports system are mediated by human-computer interfaces”. While technically
correct, playing a video game already implies the use of such interfaces – it cannot occur without
them. Hence, this aspect was not considered an explicit but rather an implicit part of the concept.
It also has to be pointed out that the authors even go much further in their definition by
stating that “the primary aspects of the sport are facilitated by electronic systems” (Hamari
and Sj€oblom, 2017, p. 211). This means that several traditional sports could also be considered Esports, video
esports, as many of them rely on electronic systems for measuring performance or even for gaming and
core aspects of the sporting competition. An example for the latter are pentathlon events
where laser shooting requiring electronic systems has become the norm. The same is true for
their fuzziness
fencing, where electronic systems measure whether somebody has been hit in the right body
part(s) or not. Furthermore, all “new” combinations of traditional sports and video gaming
would probably fall under this definition like an equivalent of chess boxing including any
traditional sport and video games. In conclusion, this specification is too far-reaching. 109

Online component
Southern states that “[e]lectronic sports, or eSports, are competitive events that involve the
use of computers and online video games to compare the skills and intelligence of the people
who play” (Southern, 2017, p. 65). Like Jenny et al. (2017, p. 4), he mentions the aspect of
“online video games”. However, a generally mandatory online component has to be discarded
as irrelevant for the concept. While it is true that the online component can be important
regarding “growth and viewership” (Jenny et al., 2017, p. 4), it depicts as little a necessity to the
core of esports itself as television does to the core of traditional sports. And even if we
understand the “online” component following Sauer’s (2019, p. 15) view on esports (he states
that electronic competitions are independent of one’s actual location), it should still be
discarded because one might participate over a long distance or sit next to the opponent(s) or
teammate(s). It will usually make no difference if no technical difficulties arise.

Skills and degree of professionalism

Some esports definitions explicitly include specific skills as well as strategic and tactical
understanding (e.g. M€ uller-Lietzkow, 2006, p. 30). This accentuates a rather professional
understanding of esports, which is problematic for at least two reasons. First, it excludes the
non-professional sector and, generally, all structurally similar video gaming performed at a
lesser skill level, which does not seem feasible. Second, it would hardly be possible to
determine exactly which combination of skill and understanding would be sufficient for a
qualification as esports. Accordingly, references to such skills should not be considered in
a general conceptualization of esports. Vice versa, esports should not only be considered a
purely “recreational activity” (Lee et al., 2014, p. 1) either, as it is done by the Korean e-Sports
Association that excludes playing esports as a profession.

Discussion and implications

Before addressing practical and academic implications of the categorization suggested in
Figure 1, some limitations have to be addressed. First of all, it has to be pointed out that narrative
reviews are appropriate for answering rather general research questions and for giving a broad
overview over a more general topic. They are also very flexible because no narrow “process of
identifying, selecting, and combining the evidence” (Montori et al., 2003, p. 44) is defined and
strictly adhered to during the review. The downside of this is that they also are somewhat less
transparent than, for instance, systematic reviews, and that it is not fully certain that a
replication of the search would yield exactly the same literature. However, considering that the
purpose of this paper was to conceptualize and categorize esports and other forms of video
gaming, a systematic or other very structured review would not have been suited as they would
have limited the flexibility needed in the search process. This is why a narrative review was the
best choice in this effort to present “a broad perspective on a topic” (Green et al., 2006, p. 103),
which can now inform further research and inspire future debates on esports.
SBM It also has to be stressed again that the question if esports can or should be considered a
14,1 sport was not relevant for this paper. It is rather a political discussion, with an outcome that can
be changed or reversed at any given time, for example, because of commercial or other interests
or power shifts. Chess, for instance, is officially recognized as a sport by the German Olympic
Sports Confederation (Deutscher Olympischer Sportbund, DOSB), even though it does not fulfill
the requirements for a recognition as a sport that have been laid down by the organization itself.
The technical solution for this obvious contradiction is that the DOSB only scrutinizes if new
110 applicants for membership fulfill the requirements (DOSB, 2018, p. 4). The discussion is ongoing
if esports or other types of video gaming mentioned in Figure 1 should also be granted
recognition by the DOSB. This is especially so because playing chess online or on a computer
using a virtual board could be considered esports. Moreover, and even though it is not Olympic,
the International Olympic Committee (IOC) also recognizes chess as a sport (IOC, 2021) as well
as an esports based on its inclusion into the Olympic Esports Series (IOC, 2023).
Be it as it may, an inherent proximity between sports and esports has been accepted, as
given in this paper, without focusing on their exact relation. This is fruitful because it opens
the floor for outlining structural similarities present in both concepts. It is also helpful when
following the future development of esports as well as traditional sports as it can be expected
that they will continue to show overlaps in the general perception of societies around the
world. Moreover, this approach can constitute a common ground for further exchange in
academia and organizational practice regardless of the specific answer to the question
whether esports is sports or not.
The research presented in this paper has a number of scientific and practical implications,
some of which will be outlined hereafter. For instance, it is a helpful basis for further research
on all aspects related to the management, marketing and consumption of esports. Like in
traditional sports, where a differentiation between the management of competitive and
leisure-oriented sports is quite common, the same can be assumed for esports and other forms
of video gaming. This means that it can be expected that the upcoming years will see a
differentiation and specialization in research and organizational practice so that different
types of video gaming will be managed and researched more and more specifically. For many
academics, a good understanding of the differences displayed in Figure 1 is of key importance
when contributing to this development, collaborating with other relevant disciplines such as
computer, media or communication science, and supporting organizational practice in
making good decisions regarding this still evolving field.
In the introduction, it has been mentioned that very large amounts of sponsoring and
advertising money are flowing into esports. As it can be expected that these amounts will
continue to grow, it is of vital importance for sport/media managers as well as sponsors and
advertisers to have a good understanding of what esports exactly is and which related forms
of video gaming exist. This is so because it is to be expected that different types of video
gaming attract different types of participants and audiences (e.g. Sj€oblom et al., 2020) and
might be suitable for different types of sponsoring or advertising engagements. Based on the
insights presented in this paper, research can now focus on such questions and should be
compatible with other research because a common ground has been provided that clarifies
which type of video gaming is actually addressed. As it has been shown that, for instance,
a specific video game can fall into different categories in Figure 1, it is now clear that “just”
looking at the name of the game is not sufficient for sound scientific research. On the contrary,
different research projects on a specific game might look at different types of video gaming,
whereas projects on different games might analyze the same type of gaming.
Currently, many management decisions regarding esports – for example, allocating
sponsoring funds – should frequently be based on an underdeveloped perception of the field.
Or – even worse – they might be conducted rather intuitively based on the perceived need to
be present in esports in order to, for instance, relate to young digital natives. The same can be
expected if sport clubs and other sports organizations open up to esports/video gaming to Esports, video
attract new customer/member groups. Yet, which games and which specifications to choose gaming and
and which strategies to employ is frequently not clear. This means that funds are often not
allocated specifically enough.
their fuzziness
Communication tools employed in casual gaming, false competitive gaming as well as
competitive gaming (cf. Figure 1) usually consist of virtual in-/off-match advertising [10] in
personal online streams of (video) gamers. Furthermore, testimonial advertising by streamers
exists. Specifically, esports displays a widespread use of virtual in-/off-match advertising as well. 111
Moreover, in-game advertising and in-stream ads can be found, depending on the distribution
channel used. Additionally, esports uses advertising spots in breaks as well as jersey and banner
advertising before, during and after the actual gameplay as well as testimonials and product
placement. To date, an overwhelming absence of studies regarding the effect of communication
tools on video game spectators – especially virtual in/off-match advertising – has to be noted
(de Zoeten and K€onecke, 2023). Considering the fundamental importance of advertising money
for esports, this absence constitutes a very broad avenue for further research. Against the
backdrop of the classification suggested in this paper, future research should also identify
differences and similarities in different types of video gaming because communication channels
should differentiate between specific user groups and types of user behavior.
Moreover, publishers aiming at aligning their game(s) with an esports federation or other
actors could turn to the categorization depicted in Figure 1 to better understand what needs to
be done. They could, for instance, consider equal starting conditions for all players if this is
not given. Similarly, traditional sports organizations might be more willing to join forces with
esports actors if certain criteria depicted in Figure 1 are fulfilled, which could also increase
acceptance among fans of traditional sports.

Conclusion
In the introduction, it has been outlined that the drastic rise of esports’ significance over the past
decades (Thorhauer et al., 2018, p. 105) has led to a considerable increase in academic interest in
recent years. Yet, a major shortcoming of past academic discussions is the lack of a general
structural conceptualization and a precise differentiation of esports from other types of video
gaming. In the past, many definitions in science and organizational practice have rather
revolved around the question whether esports is a sport or not. But regardless of whether a
sport or not, esports is an important topic for sport management and many other disciplines.
Accordingly, a general structural discussion of the concept was called for to contribute to a
“firm foundation for building research questions or hypotheses, designing methods, analyzing
data, or drawing conclusions” (Cunningham et al., 2018, p. 4). Consequently, this paper describes
the outcome of a narrative review of academic literature and sources from organizational
practice that was supplemented by conceptual work based on structural similarities between
esports and traditional sports. Using this method, a conceptualization has been suggested that
is based on structural elements (only human players, competition, equal conditions,
organization, direct vs indirect). In a next step, the perspective was broadened by showing
parallels and differences between esports and other types of video gaming (Figure 1 provides an
overview of this categorization). Finally, reasons for excluding specific elements from the
conceptualization and the categorization have been discussed.
As became clear, there are also elements that are implicitly included in the concept, such as
the comparison of a performance that is achieved exclusively in the digital space (video games)
or the irrelevance of the specific physical distance between the competitors. Also, a “team” may
consist of only one player, and fulfilling “comparably equal (starting) conditions” usually
implies equally sized teams. Additionally, it should be pointed out again that esports may take
place in a direct (PvP-setting) or an indirect (non-PvP-setting) competition, the latter by
SBM comparison of some metric like points or time needed. Furthermore, the structural elements that
14,1 have been outlined are applicable to both, professional and non-professional esports.
To close, it can be stated that esports is developing rapidly, and it can be expected that this
will not change for a long time. Thus, the final remark of this paper relates to the integration
of future developments into the categorization summarized in Figure 1. We do expect that this
categorization and/or the different categories that have been presented will be developed and
most likely also differentiated further in the future. It is our explicit intention that the
112 categorization is perceived as being open for such developments and extensions, which is
why we would like to explicitly motivate further conceptual and empirical research on the
topic to further specify and develop our suggestions.

Notes
1. “Gaming” in this context literally means playing video games.
2. When used in this paper, texts written in a language other than English were translated into English
by the authors.
3. It should be mentioned that a whole section of video games is played based on all time (high) scores
which neither are started simultaneously nor played in one defined timeframe. The so-called
speedruns (based on the metric time) are the largest section thereof (Borowy, 2012, p. 71).
4. While, for example, the mere existence of a skill tree or stats changing character levels may not
violate the aspect of equal conditions in esports, an uneven amount of available skill points or
different character levels at the start of the match will.
5. Balanced in the world of gaming does not necessarily mean having completely equal options, but
existing differences cannot lead to a general advantage for only one player or only part of the
players in the game.
6. Minions in MOBAs are non-player figures – either ally or foe – that automatically appear in fixed
places and fixed time intervals and who more or less move from place a to place b and attack
everything that is not on their team on the way there.
7. This aspect may not be true if we are dealing with a “pure” artificial intelligence instead of a
program. However, this would be a discussion for another paper.
8. At this point we ignore the possibility of non-player or zero-player games (games between only AI)
in our conceptualization. Theoretically, if only AIs play against each other, equal conditions could
be present, and it could be understood as esports. Yet, again, this is a discussion for another paper.
9. It should be pointed out again, that all-time high score lists have indeed some form of organization –
at least the verification of submitted video material and the keeping of the score list – but the term of
organization used here refers to the actual play being conducted in an organized setting (e.g. with a
time frame or a specific number of tries).
10. Virtual advertising in general is the implementation of virtual objects (brands, logos, slogans, etc.) over
a video track (Choi et al., 2016, p. 2). Virtual in-match advertising refers to virtual advertising during
the (esports-) match with a fixed position on the screen as part of the viewer interface/overlay, while
virtual off-match advertising refers to virtual advertising done outside the actual match, for example,
in breaks between or before the start of the match (de Zoeten and K€onecke, 2020, pp. 131–132).

References
Abanazir, C. (2019), “Institutionalisation in E-sports”, Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 117-131, doi: 10.1080/17511321.2018.1453538.
Adamus, T. (2015), “Organisation und Gestaltung von Lernprozessen in Computerspielen – eine
Untersuchung am Beispiel der deutschen E-Sport-Szene [Organisation and design of learning
 processes in computergames – a investigation using the example of the German E-Sport- Esports, video
scene]”, Universit€atsbibliothek Duisburg-Essen.
gaming and
Ahn, J., Collis, W. and Jenny, S. (2020), “The one billion dollar myth: methods for sizing the massively
undervalued esports revenue landscape”, International Journal of Esports, Vol. 1 No. 1, available
their fuzziness
at: https://www.ijesports.org/article/15/html
Arksey, H. and O’Malley, L. (2005), “Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework”, International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 19-32, doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616.
113
Banyai, F., Griffiths, M.D., Kiraly, O. and Demetrovics, Z. (2019), “The psychology of esports.
A systematic literature review”, Journal of Gambling Studies, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 351-365, doi: 10.
1007/s10899-018-9763-1.
Bergonse, R. (2017), “Fifty years on, what exactly is a videogame? An essentialistic definitional
approach”, The Computer Games Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 239-255, doi: 10.1007/s40869-017-0045-4.
Bertschy, M., M€ uhlbacher, H. and Desbordes, M. (2020), “Esports extension of a football brand.
Stakeholder co-creation in action?”, European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 47-68, doi: 10.1080/16184742.2019.1689281.
Borowy, M. (2012), Public Gaming: eSport and Event Marketing in the Experience Economy, Simon
Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.
Breuer, M. (2011), E-Sport – eine Markt- und ordnungs€okonomische Analyse [E-Sport – a market. And
order economically analysis], Th€
uringer Universit€ats- und Landesbibliothek, Jena.
Choi, Y., Han, S. and Yu, S. (2016), “The effects of engagement factors of virtual advertising on
purchase intention. The mediating role of advertising attitude”, Indian Journal of Science and
Technology, Vol. 9 No. 39, doi: 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i39/103238.
Cranmer, E., Han, D., van Gisbergen, B. and Jung, T. (2020), “Esports matrix: structuring the eSports
research agenda”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 17, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106671.
Cunningham, G.B., Fairley, S., Ferkins, L., Kerwin, S., Lock, D., Shaw, S. and Wicker, P. (2018), “eSport.
Construct specifications and implications for sport management”, Sport Management Review,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2017.11.002.
Deutscher Olympischer Sportbund (2018), “Aufnahmeordnung des DOSB [Admission regulations of
the DOSB]”, available at: https://cdn.dosb.de/user_upload/www.dosb.de/uber_uns/Satzungen_
und_Ordnungen/aktuell_Aufnahmeordnung_2018_.pdf
de Zoeten, M. and K€onecke, T. (2020), “Virtual in-match advertising in eSports: effects of position and
direction on brand awareness”, 28th European Sport Management Virtual Conference, 17.
September – 25. September 2020, Book of Abstracts, pp. 131-133, available at: https://easm2020.
com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/EASM-2020_Book-of-Abstracts.pdf
de Zoeten, M. and K€onecke, T. (2023), “Position and location as influencing factors for the brand
awareness of eSports viewers”, German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research. doi: 10.1007/
s12662-023-00890-x.
eSport Bund Deutschland e.V. (2018), “Sportart eSport [The Sport eSport]”, available at: https://
esportbund.de/sportart-esport/
Esports earnings (n.d.a), “Browse leagues”, available at: https://www.esportsearnings.com/leagues
Esports earnings (n.d.b), “Largest overall prize pools in esports”, available at: https://www.
esportsearnings.com/tournaments
Esposito, N. (2005), “A short and simple definition of what a videogame is”, Proceedings of DiGRA
2005 Conference: Changing Views – Worlds in Play, available at: http://www.digra.org/digital-
library/publications/a-short-and-simple-definition-of-what-a-videogame-is/
Freeman, G. and Wohn, D.Y. (2017), “eSports as an emerging research context at CHI”, in Mark, G.,
Fussell, S., Lampe, C., Hourcade, J.P., Appert, C. and Wigdor, D. (Eds), Proceedings of the 2017
CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1601-1608,
doi: 10.1145/3027063.3053158.
SBM Fritz, J. (2014), “Digitale spiele [digital games]”, in Tillmann, A., Fleischer, S. and Hugger, K. (Eds),
Handbuch Kinder und Medien, Springer Fachmedien, pp. 403-418.
14,1
Fromme, J. (2008), “Virtuelle Welten und Cyberspace [Virtual worlds and cyberspace]”, in von Gross,
F., Marotzki, W. and Sander, U. (Eds), Internet – Bildung – Gemeinschaft, VS Verlag f€ ur
Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 169-201.
Funk, D.C., Pizzo, A.D. and Baker, B.J. (2018), “eSport management. Embracing eSport education and research
opportunities”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 7-13, doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2017.07.008.
114
Garcıa, J. and Murillo, C. (2020), “Sports video games participation: what can we learn for esports?”,
Sport, Business and Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 169-185, doi: 10.1108/SBM-01-2019-0006.
Gaum, C. (2014), “Fairness im Spannungsfeld zwischen Moral und Asthetik. € Eine empirische
Untersuchung im Amateurfußball [Fairness in the area of conflict between moral and aesthetic.
An empirical study in amateur soccer]”, Universit€atsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg,
Frankfurt am Main.
Green, B.N., Johnson, C.D. and Adams, A. (2006), “Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-
reviewed journals: secrets of the trade”, Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 101-117, doi: 10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., Kyriakidou, O. and Peacock, R. (2005), “Storylines
of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review”, Social
Science and Medicine, Vol. 61 No. 29, pp. 417-430, doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001.
Guttmann, A. (2004), From Ritual to Record. The Nature of Modern Sports, Columbia University
Press, New York.
Hallmann, K. and Giel, T. (2018), “eSports – competitive sports or recreational activity?”, Sport
Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 14-20, doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2017.07.011.
Hamari, J. and Sj€oblom, M. (2017), “What is eSports and why do people watch it?”, Internet Research,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 211-232, doi: 10.1108/IntR-04-2016-0085.
Hamilton, W., Kerne, A. and Robbins, T. (2012), “High-performance pen þ touch modality interactions:
a real-time strategy game eSports context”, Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on
User Interface Software and Technology (UIST 2012), pp. 309-318, doi: 10.1145/2380116.2380156.
Heere, B. (2018), “Embracing the sportification of society. Defining e-sports through a polymorphic view
on sport”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 21-24, doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2017.07.002.
Hemphill, D. (2005), “Cybersport”, Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, Vol. 32, pp. 195-207, doi: 10.1080/
00948705.2005.9714682.
Hemphill, D. (2015), “Cybersport”, in Torres, C. (Ed.), The Bloomsbury Companion to the Philosophy of
Sport, Bloomsbury, pp. 346-348.
Hess, M., Weller, C. and Scheithauer, H. (2015), Fairplayer.Sport: soziale Kompetenz und Fairplay
spielerisch f€ordern. Ein Programm f€ ur das Fußballtraining mit 9- bis 13-J€ahrigen
[Fairplayer.Sport: improving social competences and fair play playfully], HOGREFE, G€ottingen.
Holzke, F. (2001), “Der Begriff Sport im deutschen und im europ€aischen Recht [The term sport in
German and European law]”, available at: http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/989/
International Esports Federation (n.d.a), “ESPORTS”, available at: https://ie-sf.org/esports
International Esports Federation (n.d.b), “What we do”, available at: https://ie-sf.org/about/what-we-do
IOC (2021), “Recognised federations”, available at: https://www.olympic.org/recognised-federations
IOC (2023), “Olympic esports. Enter the arena”, available at: https://olympics.com/en/esports/
Jenny, S.E., Manning, R.D., Keiper, M.C. and Olrich, T.W. (2017), “Virtual(ly) athletes: where eSports fit
within the definition of ‘sport’”, Quest, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1080/00336297.2016.1144517.
Juul, J. (2003), “The game, the player, the world: looking for a hear of gameness”, in Copier, M. and
Raessens, J. (Eds), Level Up: Digital Games Research Conference Proceedings, pp. 30-45.
Kane, D. and Spradley, B.D. (2017), “Recognizing ESports as a sport”, The Sport Journal, available at: Esports, video
https://thesportjournal.org/article/recognizing-esports-as-a-sport/
gaming and
K€onecke, T., Primke, D. and Simon, P. (2016), “Dropout und Therapietreue von Herzpatienten in
€
Rehabilitationssportgruppen – eine Ubersicht €ber einschl€agige Studien [Dropout and compliance
u
their fuzziness
of cardiac patients in rehabilitation exercise groups – a review of relevant studies]”, German
Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 67 No. 10, pp. 244-248, doi: 10.5960/dzsm.2016.255.
Lee, S.W., An, J. and Lee, Ji Y. (2014), “The relationship between e-sports viewing motives and
satisfaction: the case of league of Legends”, International Conference on Business, Management 115
and Corporate Social Responsibility (ICBMCSR’14), Batam, Feb. 14-15, 2014, available at:
https://web.yonsei.ac.kr/bkgsi/pdf_paper/%EB%9D%BD%EC%88%A0)%EC%9D%B4%EC
%A7%80%EC%98%81(%EC%9D%B4%EC%83%81%EC%9A%B0).pdf
Lenk, H. (2010), Sport von Kopf bis Fuss(ball) [Sport from head to Foot(ball)], LIT Verlag, M€
unster.
Llorens, M.R. (2017), “eSport gaming. The rise of a new sports practice”, Sport, Ethics and Philosophy,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 464-476, doi: 10.1080/17511321.2017.1318947.
Lokhman, N., Karashchuk, O. and Kornilova, O. (2018), “Analysis of eSports as a commercial activity”,
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 207-213, doi: 10.21511/ppm.16(1).2018.20.
Mariot, D. and Nufer, G. (2020), “Die Besonderheiten von PR in eSports [Specifics of PR in eSports]”,
NACHSPIELZEIT die Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Instituts f€ ur Sportmarketing, Vol. 2020, p. 1.
McCutcheon, C., Hitchens and, M. and Drachen, A. (2018), “eSport vs irlSport”, in Cheok, A.D., Inami,
M. and Rom~ao, T. (Eds), Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology. 14th International
Conference ACE 2017, London, December 14-16 2017, Proceedings, pp. 531-542, doi: 10.1007/
978-3-319-76270-8.
Montori, V., Swiontkowski, M. and Cook, D. (2003), “Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and
meta-analyses”, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Vol. 413, pp. 43-54, doi: 10.1097/01.
blo.0000079322.41006.5b.
uller-Lietzkow, J. (2006), “Leben in medialen Welten. E-Sport als Leistungs- und Lernfeld [Living in
M€
medial worlds. E-Sport as performance and learngin enviroment]”, Medien und Erziehung,
Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 28-33.
Newzoo (2022), “Global Esports and Live Streaming Market Report”, Key Trends j Market Sizing and
Forecasts. Special Focus: Mobile Esports, Blockchain, and Co-streaming.
Nufer, G. (2020), “eSports: was es ist und wie es sich entwickelt [eSports: what it is and how it
developes]”, Reutlinger Diskussionsbeitr€age zu Marketing and Management, Vol. 2020, p. 1.
Olshefski, E.G. (2015), “Game-changing event definition and detection in an eSports corpus”,
Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on EVENTS: Definition, Detection, Coreference, and
Representation, pp. 77-81, doi: 10.3115/v1/W15-08.
Parry, J. (2019), “E-sports are not sports”, Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 3-18, doi: 10.
1080/17511321.2018.1489419.
Pizzo, A., Baker, B., Na, S., Lee, M.A., Kim, D. and Funk, D. (2017), “eSport vs sport: a comparison of
spectator motives”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 1-41.
Peters, M., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. and Khalil, H. (2020), “Chapter 11: scoping
reviews (2020 version)”, in Aromataris, E. and Munn, Z. (Eds), JBI Manual for Evidence
Synthesis, doi: 10.46658/JBIMES-20-12.
Qian, T.Y., Wang, J.J., Zhang, J.J. and Lu, L.Z. (2020), “It is in the game. Dimensions of esports online
spectator motivation and development of a scale”, European Sport Management Quarterly,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 458-479, doi: 10.1080/16184742.2019.1630464.
Rapaport, D. (2017), “What to expect from the booming esports industry in 2017”, available at: https://
www.si.com/media/2017/02/09/esports-industry-expectations-billion-dollar
Reitman, J.G., Anderson-Coto, M.J., Wu, M., Lee, J.S. and Steinkuehler, C. (2020), “Esports research.
A literature review”, Games and Culture, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32-50, doi: 10.1177/1555412019840892.
SBM Rulofs, B. (2017), “Eine Frage der Haltung. Fairness und Chancengleichheit im Sport [A Quesion of
attitude. Fairness and level playing field in sports]”, in Deutscher Olympischer Sportbund e. V
14,1 (Ed.), Sport ist Fair? Chancengleichheit und gesellschaftspolitische Verantwortung im Sport
Grundlagenmaterial und Lehrbeispiele f€ ur den gemeinn€ utzig organisierten Sport, pp. 19-29.
Sauer, A. (2019), eSport, Netzwerkeffekte und Lindahl-Preise, Springer-Gabler, Wiesbaden.
Schubert, M., Eing, F. and K€onecke, T. (2022), “Perceptions of professional esports players on
performance-enhancing substances”, Performance Enhancement and Health, Vol. 10 No. 4,
116 doi: 10.1016/j.peh.2022.100236.
Schubert, M. and K€onecke, T. (2014), “‘Classical’ doping, financial doping and beyond: UEFA’s
financial fair play as a policy of anti-doping”, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 63-86, doi: 10.1080/19406940.2013.854824.
Seo, Y. (2013), “Electronic sports. A new marketing landscape of the experience economy”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 29 Nos 13-14, pp. 1542-1560, doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2013.822906.
Seo, Y. and Jung, S. (2016), “Beyond solidary play in computer games: the social practice of eSports”,
Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 635-655, doi: 10.1177/1469540514553711.
Sj€oblom, M., Macey, J. and Hamari, J. (2020), “Digital athletics in analogue stadiums: comparing
gratifications for engagement between live attendance and online esports spectating”, Internet
Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 713-735, doi: 10.1108/INTR-07-2018-0304.
Southern, N. (2017), “The rise of eSports: a new audience model and a new medium?”, in Stanislaus
(Ed.), California State University, University Honors Program, pp. 65-68.
Thiel, A. and John, J.M. (2019), “Is eSport a ‘real’ sport? Reflections on the spread of virtual
competitions”, European Journal for Sport and Society, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 311-315, doi: 10.1080/
16138171.2018.1559019.
Thorhauer, Y., Jakob, A. and Ratz, M. (2018), “E-Sport – skizze eines neuen Forschungsfeldes [E-Sport
– sketch of a new field of study]”, in Thorhauer, Y. and Kexel, C.A. (Eds), Compliance im Sport.
Theorie und Praxis, pp. 105-125.
Tod, D. (2019), “Conducting systematic reviews in sport, exercise, and physical activity”, doi: 10.1007/
978-3-030-12263-8.
Wagner, M. (2006), “On the scientific relevance of eSports”, Conference Paper (Proceedings of the 2006
International Conference on Internet Computing and Conference on Computer Games
Development), ICOMP 2006, Las Vegas, Nevada, pp. 437-440.
Walton, D.R., Lower-Hoppe, L.M. and Horger, M. (2020), “Do esports classify as intercollegiate sport?
Legal analysis of title IX”, Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, Vol. 13, pp. 94-118, available
at: https://csri-jiia.org/do-esports-classify-as-intercollegiate-sport-legal-analysis-of-title-ix/

Corresponding author
Max de Zoeten can be contacted at: maxdezoeten@immo-intelligence.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com