Esports Associationalism
Résumé
Though competitive computer gaming, often known as esports, is largely constructed
around commercial games, it has simultaneously had a long history as a grassroots
driven activity deeply tied to the work of third party organizations and structures.
Esports has operated within amateur & pro-am settings, and often within noncommercial
frameworks. It has also been meaningfully tied to regional contexts. These
have ranged from informal associations of players who root their competitive practices
around their school, region, country to national policies and infrastructures (such as in
South Korea) and national tournaments (for example via the World Cyber Games
structure that was akin to an Olympic model). Though commercial stakeholders (such
as Blizzard Entertainment or Riot Games) currently play a dominant role within
esports, third parties remain an important node, both historically and as they
reformulate themselves in our new commercial moment. This panel asks: What are the
histories of third party esports associations and what are the current emerging roles and
practices of the non-profit esports association in particular?
As a movement and construct, associationalism has been called a “genuine European
social theory” (Kaspersen & Ottesen 2001), which “seeks to expand the scope of
democratic governance in civil society” (Hirst 2002 p. 409). Sports and leisure clubs
have been ongoing structural forms in the development of new forms of associativity
and central to understanding concepts of communitarianism, social capital though
leisure practices, and the pivotal role of the third sector in democratic society (Frazer
2000, Kidd & Donnelly 2000). From this perspective, the organizational and
ideological frameworks propping up recognized sport in society are shaped by state,
market, and public sectors in different stages of involvement and retreat (Eichberg
2009).
Periodic research on the rise and role of esports associations appears in the scholarship
of Dal Young Jin (2010) and T.L. Taylor (2012), with attention to the foremost
associations emerging in the early 2000’s out of South Korea (namely, the Korean e-
Sports Association and the International eSports Federation). The historical (and
continuing) work of both KeSPA and the IeSF are foundational for most Western
international esports associations, as structures and practices (and to some extent
ideologies) established within this dominant era of Korean esports are replicated or
contested by associations under formalization.
While the durability and presence of South Korean esports on esports associationalism
offers a historical pivot for sports associationalism writ large, continued development
of esports associationalism warrants further exploration. Over the last decade, esports
drifted towards this sectorial trifecta of state/market/public in several regions, with
esports associations moving from independent grassroots entities into formalized
structural relationships, where esports governance crosses various institutional
stakeholders, with diverging intentions and results (Taylor 2012). The serious growth
in the commercialization of esports in just the last handful of years has provided
additional fuel to the development of these organizations world-wide.
The international rise of recognized esports associations offers an opportunity to
explore the role of formally organized digital games-centric cultural institutions which
have rapidly developed horizontal relationships with independent, state, and
commercial groups. With the rise of recognized esports associations internationally,
this panel asks how associativity (club organisations outside of the family – See
Szymanski 2006) is rendered across national esports associations, and what regionally
located tensions have emerged across the esports sectorial trifecta. Perhaps most
notably, the rise of these “alternative” associations represent a challenge to existing
sports models, suggesting a range of activities, environments, and relationships which
belong to and extend regional conceptualisations of “sport”.
Given esports associations are cultural constructs with local and global demands, this
panel is anchored in the researcher’s everyday participation and fieldwork across
different organizations, notably France Esports and the Australian Esports Association.
Additionally, the Japan esports Union (JeSU) has been invited to participate and share
their experiences of regional sector growth. Each association represents different stages
of organizational experience, development, and recognition as esports within society.
The panel engages with familiar issues and distinctions surrounding the role of esports
and the third sector, where esports is still finding its political place. Following
Raymond Williams (1977), the panel will explore residual, dominant, and emerging
processes surfacing at the edges of the developing relationships and structures
bridinging state, market, and public sectors. These include the cultivation of domesticglobal
esports association values, reconciling with esports as sports (within existing
government sports frameworks), alongside of regionally locating inclusivity practices
and what “sports for all” looks like from within the associational framework. From
these distinct regional profiles, both unique and common structures and practices
propping up esports associational culture are made visible, and a broader understanding
of esports and the role of computer games in society is made possible (Ibsen, Nichols
& Elmose-Osterlund 2016).