Content uploaded by Joseph Macey
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joseph Macey on Mar 22, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Maria Törhönen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maria Törhönen on Mar 14, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Original Research Article 1
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
Current issues of sustainability in esports
Anna-Greta Nyström*1, Brian McCauley2, Joseph Macey3, Tobias M. Scholz4, Nicolas Besombes5, Joaquin Cestino,
Julia Hiltscher, Stephanie Orme, Ryan Rumble, Maria Törhönen
1. Åbo Akademi University
2. MMTC, JIBS, Jönköping University
3. University of Turku; Gamification Group, Tampere University
4. University of Siegen
5. Institut des Sciences du Sport-Santé de Paris (URP 3625) - Université de Paris
6. JIBS, Jönköping University
7. University of Bonn; ESL Gaming GmbH
8. Emmanuel College
9. MMTC, JIBS, Jönköping University
10. Gamification Group, Tampere University
* Correspondence to anna-greta.nystrom@abo.fi
Abstract
Aims: Sustainability refers to the ability of esports to survive or persist. The aim of the paper is
to explore emerging themes that support the development of a sustainable esports industry.
Methods and results: This study is based on a workshop methodology, which aims to identify
and explore topics perceived as most pertinent by individuals with an intimate understanding
of the dynamics of the esports context. Two workshops were held with a total of 64
participants, representing both academia and esports industry stakeholders. Interpretations of
the sustainability of esports were thus recorded, developed, critiqued, and refined through
social interaction with experts. The results indicate three critical themes to address regarding
the development of sustainability of esports, namely a) health and inclusiveness, b) the
incomplete industry structure, and c) the immature business logic.
Conclusions: We argue that sustainability is dependent on how well esports industry
stakeholders can address the identified themes. Currently, social sustainability is the primary
concern of both practitioners and researchers of esports. Economic sustainability mostly deals
with securing business growth, while environmental sustainability is not yet perceived as a
relevant topic (e.g., using sustainable technologies and energy-saving related to gaming and
competitive events). Structures and processes within esports presently constitute the focus of
sustainability in esports.
Keywords: esports, sustainability, economic sustainability, social sustainability
Highlights
• Sustainability in esports has mostly centered around economic aspects, while social
issues are currently rising to the forefront.
• Three themes currently illuminate which issues must be addressed to achieve a
sustainable esports industry: health and inclusiveness, incomplete industry structure,
and immature business logic.
Original Research Article 2
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
• If esports is to become sustainable, these aforementioned emerging themes require
effort to be addressed from both practitioners and researchers.
Note: Data collection within this research was conducted before the global outbreak of
COVID-19.
Original Research Article 3
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
Introduction
While research on esports continues to increase, new perspectives emerge regarding future
opportunities and research avenues related to the industry. Currently, prominent esports
research areas include media studies, informatics, business, sports science, sociology, law, the
convergence of gaming and gambling, and cognitive sciences [1]. In addition, new
combinations of applied theoretical lenses will continue to open innovative avenues for
researchers as the esports industry evolves. Nevertheless, esports and the role of esports in
society are often under-researched, although esports, as evidenced in the current pandemic,
can act as a future lab for the digitized society [2].
Esports is a multifaceted social phenomenon but is often regarded as a business or an
economic industry [3]. Despite impressive estimates of the industry value at approximately 25
billion USD [4], this narrow perspective underestimates the complexity of the ecosystem and
how various stakeholders act to advance and broaden the industry. A recent topical issue of
the esports industry concerns its sustainability [5] which has so far received scant attention in
academia, despite becoming an essential ingredient of corporate strategies and business
models within esports [6-7]. Recent work finds that more research is required specifically in
terms of weaknesses and threats to the industry [8].
As esports continue to grow, sustainability will become increasingly relevant for any
stakeholder, despite individual actors in the ecosystem often lacking sustainability. Within
esports, sustainability has hitherto centered around the stability of the industry and securing
business growth [5], consequently, research addressing sustainability in esports relates to the
continuity of the industry and its communities, and how esports should develop to grow and
stay competitive. Therefore, it is vital to explore sustainability in esports from new
perspectives, including economic, environmental, and social sustainability [9]. Economic
sustainability refers to the more effective use of resources concerning economic growth, while
environmental sustainability relates to the maintenance and improvement of natural support
systems and services for current and future generations of living creatures. Finally, social
sustainability refers to the physical well-being and basic needs of individuals, quality of life,
and equity (see Table 1). Consequently, as the triple bottom line model of sustainability [10]
depicts, all dimensions benefit from and support each other.
Table 1: Sustainability concepts in esports
Sustainability concept
Definition
Economic sustainability
The effective use of resources concerning economic growth.
Social sustainability
The physical well-being and basic needs of individuals, quality of life,
and equity.
Environmental
sustainability
The maintenance and improvement of natural support systems and
services for current and future generations of living creatures.
Esports sustainability
The ability of esports to survive or persist.
This paper addresses the issue of sustainability in esports by mapping emerging
developmental areas within the esports industry in need of attention and effort. As a result, it
addresses sustainability issues related to esports, while providing a holistic overview of the
industry, its ecosystems, and value-creation logic. The aim of the paper is to explore emerging
Original Research Article 4
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
themes that support the development of a sustainable esports industry. The following research
question guides the study: What issues must be addressed to develop a sustainable future for
esports?
Method
To investigate and identify issues related to the sustainability of the esports industry, a
workshop research methodology was deemed to be the most suitable. Workshops are similar
in style to focus group methods and are particularly suited to fulfil a specific research purpose
[11]. They are especially well-suited for exploring and identifying research areas or challenges
that are vague and inexplicit [12] or include complex motivations and behaviors, while
affording diverse views [13]. The workshop methodology allows for the identification and
exploration of those topics perceived as most pertinent by individuals with an intimate
understanding of nuances and dynamics of the esports context [14]. Furthermore, a workshop
research methodology allows us to record individual interpretations of the industry and have
those initial interpretations developed, critiqued, and refined through social interaction with
other experts [15]. Thus, a workshop setting enables a range of individual experiences to be
synthesized into a ‘collective sense’ [16].
Research design
Workshops as a research methodology have no specific procedures or scripts regarding
methodological issues [17]. However, both primary and secondary data may be produced from
workshops [18]; the former emerges in real-time, and the latter is formed in retrospect through
representations and accounts of what took place during the workshop. The ‘Symposium on
developing a sustainable future for esports’, was held in November 2019 in Jönköping, Sweden
[19]. Two concurrent workshops were hosted at Jönköping University, each with 30 attendees
representing both the esports industry and academia [20]. Invited participants were assigned
into multiple subgroups of four to five attendees and one facilitator each. Equal opportunity to
contribute was facilitated via small group size and inclusive seating arrangements. This design
allowed all participants to face one another and direct their ideas and comments to the group
rather than the facilitator. Furthermore, it attempted to remove symbolic hierarchies that
might be formed, for instance, if one person is sitting at the head of the table.
Participant demographics
In total, there were 64 participants, including four workshop leaders. Although most (52) were
based in Sweden, there was diverse international representation with 28 participants who were
not of Swedish nationality. Of the participants, 17 were female and 47 male. Ages ranged from
approximately 20 to 55 years with the majority aged in their 20s and 30s. The 30
representatives in each workshop were industry representatives and members of academia,
many of whom had extensive links to industry and practical experience. The workshops
included representatives of international esports stakeholders (e.g., Esports Integrity
Commission [ESIC], DreamHack, and The Esports Observer), and Swedish esports
organizations (e.g., Female Legends, Swedish Esports Association, Esports United, and
Phoenix Blue). In addition, attendees represented esports content creators, entrepreneurs,
indie game developers, LAN organizers, student associations, esports coaches, sports clubs,
local government, and former professional players. Academic areas of expertise included
esports, marketing, entrepreneurship, media, innovation, legitimacy studies, gambling,
streaming and content creation, gender studies, game cultures, institutional studies, and
globalization.
Original Research Article 5
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
Data collection
The workshops were structured as follows (see Table 2). First, the facilitators adopted a
‘flexible moderator’ role [21] where participants were given the freedom to interpret
sustainability issues as they saw fit and were allowed the autonomy to direct the conversation
to where they, as experts in the field, believed it should be directed. Second, the facilitator
acted as amanuensis (i.e., note taker) during these discussions. These notes were used to aid
facilitation and as raw data for later analysis. Finally, the facilitator also wrote down (or
encouraged participants to write down) each idea on post-it notes and placed each on an A2-
sized piece of paper in the middle of the table, which served as an interactive mind map. The
mind map provided participants with a visual and physical aid to further discuss ideas, suggest
modifications/clarifications, and suggest relationships between different post-it notes (for
example, by placing them in thematic clusters) [22]. Third, the subgroups presented a
summary of their discussions to all workshop participants, ensuring issues could be shared,
elaborated upon, and discussed. After each group presented their issues, they were
categorized into mutually exclusive, but comprehensively exhaustive themes. Fourth, each
subgroup was assigned a theme and allowed time to discuss how this issue could be resolved
(using the same approach as in step two). After 20 minutes, the themes were swapped so that
each group was able to discuss potential solutions to three themes. Finally, each group
presented their solutions to all workshop participants, allowing other groups to discuss,
critique, and synthesize each solution as a collective. Participants were also allowed to give
broader comments about the workshop and the state of the industry, ask facilitators and peers
final questions, and present any final thoughts they had for later reflection.
Table 2: Structure and process of the workshops
Stage
Level of
discussion
Facilitators’ role
Participants’ role
1. Introduction
All workshop
participants
Introduce and frame the
workshop
Listen and ask questions about
format
2. Issue
identification
Group
Flexible moderator, note taker,
post-it writer
Identify and discuss key
sustainability issues affecting
esports industry
3. Issue
discussion
All workshop
participants
Moderate discussion, write ideas
on whiteboard, facilitate
categorization of ideas into
themes
Present, elaborate, and critique
issues. Collectively categorize
issues into key themes
4. Solution
proposals
Group
Flexible moderator, note taker,
post-it writer
Propose potential solutions for
issues
5. Solution
discussion
All workshop
participants
Moderate discussion, write ideas
on whiteboard, facilitate
categorization of ideas into
themes
Present, elaborate, and critique
solutions. Collectively
categorize solutions into key
themes
6. Close the
workshop
All workshop
participants
Thank attendees. Encourage
comments around the workshop
Comments about the workshop.
Pose questions and final
thoughts.
As a result of the workshops, all discussion groups produced mind maps and lists of keywords
and topics covered during the discussion. In addition, the facilitator of each group wrote down
the group’s thoughts and ideas. These lists constituted our primary data. Furthermore, after
the workshop, the facilitators were asked to summarize their thoughts on the group
discussion in written format, which we also used as data in our analysis. The summaries were
collected per email shortly after the workshop.
Original Research Article 6
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
Data analysis
The data were analyzed using thematic analysis [23]; in this phase, the researchers searched
for descriptions of sustainability and mapped the different topics that the workshop
participants viewed as important for the future of the esports industry. Independent
researcher coding was guided by identifying issues, proposed solutions, and the relationships
between them (see Table 3).
Table 3. Data analysis process
Data analysis phase
Task
Outcome
1. Open coding
Identify and categorize issues
8 consolidated themes
2. Focused coding, round 1
Identify solutions to the
consolidated themes, noting
relationships between the
themes
Further descriptions of the
consolidated themes
3. Focused coding, round 2
Identify sustainability
dimension of each consolidated
theme
Linking the 8 consolidated
themes to sustainability
dimensions
4. Analysis of outcomes
Synthesize the coding rounds
3 propositions for addressing
sustainability in esports
Care was taken to ensure that minority or dissenting opinions were also considered during
coding. We were thus able to identify and categorize areas of research, which the workshop
participants viewed as important and/or emerging related to each sustainability orientation
(economic, social, environmental). The findings were then discussed as a research team until
agreement was made on final themes based upon the data and research question. Figure 1
provides an overview of the study’s design and data analysis process.
Figure 1. Research design and data analysis process
Results
The resulting themes from the workshop were categorized into three main topics linked to
established sustainability dimensions [9]. Table 4 provides an overview of the main themes
addressed in the workshops (columns 1-2) and the consolidated sub-themes based on both
workshops (column 3) linked to a primary sustainability dimension (column 4). Finally, Table
Workshop 1 & 2;
60 participants;
4 workshop
leaders
Data analysis Identification
and detailing of
emerging themes
Understanding
of sustainability
issues in esports
Written notes,
mindmaps, and
group discussion
summaries
Eight sub-themes
were identified in
the data and linked
to sustainability
dimensions
After consolidating the sub-themes,
three main themes emerged as issues
addressing sustainability in esports
Process
Outcome
Original Research Article 7
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
4 indicates the final consolidated emerging themes based on sustainability dimensions
(column 5). These categories are presented as propositions highlighting those areas of the
esports ecosystem in need of further attention if the industry is to achieve sustainability at all
levels (economic, social, and environmental). The propositions are: (1) social sustainability in
esports requires addressing issues of health and inclusiveness, (2) social and economic
sustainability in esports require stable industry structures, increase of legitimacy, and
decentralized governance; and (3) economic sustainability in esports requires an evolution of
business logic.
Table 4. Emerging main themes based on the workshop data
Business workshop
topics
Society workshop
topics
Consolidated
sub-themes
Primary
sustainability
dimension
Emerging
main
themes
Recognition and
increased
understanding of
esports as sports,
players’ well-being
Lack of definition
of sports and
esports, hidden
agendas in esports,
burn-out, disorders
Social and mental
health
Social
sustainability
Health issues
and
inclusiveness
Bullying/harassment
and toxic
environment
Gender equality
Diversity and
inclusion
Social
sustainability
Geographical
differences and rules
in esports
(Organizational)
fragmentation
Inconsistent
industry standards
Social &
Economic
sustainability
Incomplete
industry
structure
Lack of rules and/or
inconsistent rules,
code of conduct
Lack of knowledge
and
professionalization
Governance and
institutionalization
Social &
Economic
sustainability
Unclarity in league
structures and games
(lack of clear paths
hinders
sensemaking)
Lack of
transparency,
complexity of
industry
Transparency of
structures
Social &
Economic
sustainability
Lack of service
providers, lack of
organization and
structure, unclear
prospects
Risks and
unpredictable
future
Fragmented
ecosystem
Social &
Economic
sustainability
The leap from
occasional player to
professional–lack of
support or guidance,
and development of
skills
Lack of knowledge
and
professionalization
/ limited career
prospects
Training and
education
Economic
sustainability
Immature
business
logic
Monetization issues,
revenue hard to come
by, financial
sustainability,
uncertainty, and
instability
Commerciality and
return on
investment
Revenue models
Economic
sustainability
Discussion
Original Research Article 8
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
Each proposition is now discussed in a dedicated sub-section and presented conjointly with a
background review of the consolidated themes linked to the proposition. By broadening the
discussion to the extant literature, we holistically approach the emerging sustainability themes
in esports.
Social sustainability in esports requires addressing issues of health and inclusiveness
We identified the following sub-themes in the data associated with the social sustainability
dimension within esports: social and mental health, and diversity and inclusion.
Social and mental health
The informants identify players’ mental health as a significant topic in esports. Many
professional players have publicly discussed feeling ‘burnt out’ at some point in their careers
[24]. Many elite professional players must contend with busy competitive seasons, often
traveling around the globe over short periods, competing in high-stakes tournaments, and
gruelling practice schedules with little downtime. In the coming years, special attention
should be directed at the players’ practice environment and especially to their life rhythms,
the role of the parental and social environment in their development and well-being, as well as
the social cohesion of the groups of players with each other, their support staff and with the
culture of the country in which they stay. However, players’ mental health is not limited solely
to cases of burnout; there is also a need to address nutrition education, increased physical and
mental stimulation beyond the game, and treating depression and anxiety in players [25].
Nutritionists, dieticians, and mental health professionals are increasingly overseeing the
health and development of esports players [26], as has been the norm in traditional sports for
decades.
Disorders linked to the social and cultural dimensions of players’ health, often teenagers or
young adults, constitute a challenge for esports [27]. The separation of families, cultural
differences, the challenge of relationships, or the different circadian rhythms due to different
time zones, are all elements likely to harm players’ well-being (e.g., [28]). Physical injuries are
certainly the most visible traumas experienced by players who practice intensively, with many
high-level players having publicly mentioned the issue, sometimes even putting their careers
on hold, or stopping altogether [29-30]. No genre or game medium is spared and specific
approaches to medicine in esports are increasingly required [31]. Research into physical
injuries in esports have also identified ongoing issues with many teams now staffing physical
trainers, physiotherapists, osteopaths, and occupational therapists [32-33]. Concurrently,
physiological monitoring devices will increasingly support these efforts to maintain peak
performance [34].
Diversity and inclusion
The informants consider the esports industry as mainly composed of young, white, able-
bodied men. While exceptions can be found at the highest level, participant perceptions were
that there are few female players, few BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) players
in the PC esports scene, few players over the age of 30 years, even fewer players with
disabilities, and very few transgender or non-binary players. As with any other cultural or
sporting activity, esports reflects the societies in which it has emerged and developed. In
theory, esports is a unique space of inclusion; the skills required to perform in video games do
not discriminate against people based on their gender, skin color, or age. In practice, however,
the idea of an inclusive esports ecosystem is not yet a reality.
Original Research Article 9
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
In addition, the following themes of diversity were identified in the data: gender, racial,
generational, and inclusion of people with disabilities. Current estimates state that half of all
video game players are women [35]. Yet, they comprise only six percent of the competitive
esports scene [36], only four percent of LAN attendees over the last ten years [37], and only a
handful have participated in major international competitions or leagues (e.g., Kim “Geguri”
Se-Yeon in Overwatch, Sasha “Scarlett” Hostyn in Starcraft II, or Li “Liooon” Xiaomeng in
Hearthstone). Reasons for this disparity may include social constructions which favor
cooperation over competition in adolescent girls, gendered marketing of video games oriented
towards adolescent boys in the 1990s, an absence of playable and non-hypersexualized female
characters, and toxicity in online spaces [38-41]. Although it is an aspect of diversity that is
sometimes discussed less than gender, there are apparent differences in the representation of
Black or Latinx people in esports, depending on the competitive scenes and the games media.
As observed from highest overall earnings [42], PC gaming is dominated by white and Asian
players. The console-based gaming communities–particularly the fighting game community–
appears more diverse [43]. The absence of BIPOC gamers at the highest professional level may
be rooted in a lack of support from game publishers for their competitive console scenes
(compared to their PC scenes). Toxicity and harassment further compound the situation
BIPOC players face in online gaming spaces [44]. Thus, while research on race in esports is
developing into a focal area [45], commitment from game publishers, league organizers, and
event management is needed to ensure a healthy social environment for marginalized players.
Thus far much of the activism in this space has been spearheaded by individual players,
although several organizations have emerged, including AnyKey, Black Girl Gamers, Latinx in
Gaming, Melanin Gamers, or Afrogameuses, that strive to build racially diverse esports
communities [46].
Social and economic sustainability in esports require stable industry structures,
increased legitimacy, and decentralized governance
We identified the following themes alluding to both social and economic sustainability:
inconsistent industry standards, governance and institutionalization, transparency of
structures, and fragmented ecosystem.
Inconsistent industry standards
During the late 2010s, game developers adopted the games as a service paradigm (i.e., Games
as a Service [GaaS]) [47]. Consequently, the esports ecosystem moved towards a more market-
based environment, with the emergence of specific ecosystems for individual esports titles
increasing fragmentation. Concurrently, publishers centralized the competitive tournaments
at the highest level; as such, every esports title has an ecosystem both derived from, and
supporting, the business model of the video game publisher, creating a lack of uniformity in
the regulation and governance of the sector [5].
This market-based focus has initiated several issues that impact the entire esports ecosystem’s
social and economic sustainability. Accordingly, the informants in this study point at a lack of
industry standards within esports, with those that do exist being inconsistent; the presence of
different publishers, different strategies and diverse stakeholders mean the creation of
necessary standards, and metrics within the industry is particularly challenging. This situation
is further complicated because esports is a worldwide phenomenon, there is pressure on
esports organizations to act globally despite being rooted locally and subject to differences in
national law and structures [48]. For example, the informants recommended an industry
standard for viewership metric (e.g., Average Minute Audience [AMA]) both valuable and
necessary. In addition, as industry standards for contracts in esports collide with national
Original Research Article 10
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
employment laws, it is essential to evaluate where industry standards are required and push
for solutions.
Governance and institutionalization
The gatekeepers of esports represent a form of governance regarding their respective games
and, if they are professional, have some form of institutionalization. For example, Overwatch,
and the Overwatch League, are highly regulated and can rival other governance structures in
traditional sports [10]. Despite this structure, there is a call for a governing body on a global
level [49] for which a range of bodies are competing; there are currently eight international
federations that claim to be the governing body of esports worldwide, including: International
eSports Federation (IeSF), International Digital Sports Committee (IDSC), International
Esports Committee (IEC), World E-sports Consortium (WESCO), World Esports Association
(WESA), Esports World Federation (ESWF), International Esports Omnipotent Committee
(IEOC) and the Global E-Sports Federation (GEF). Two of them, the IeSF and GEF stand out,
either because of their relative longevity (the IeSF was created in 2008 and covered
approximately 100 member countries) or their relative representativeness (some of the largest
game publishers in the esports industry are founders and members of the GEF). However,
both governing bodies use the same strategies and pursue the same objective: to align with the
sporting and Olympic institutions [50]. Yet, neither of these entities has acquired the
necessary legitimacy within the esports industry [51]. An underlying question concerns the
necessity of such a governing body on the international level if, within a specific game, a
publisher possesses this role. The discussion addresses important issues related to the benefits
usually associated with legitimacy, particularly, access to resources and organizational success.
On the national or federal levels, associations are perhaps better equipped to act as governing
bodies due to the legitimacy they are provided with thanks to their direct connection to the
region and the grassroots level. But this can only happen if the publisher delegates this role to
governing associations.
Transparency of structures
The consequence of the lack of interest from game publishers is the presence of many
stakeholders embodying a range of diverse and varied interests who wish to position
themselves as parallel regulators of the esports ecosystem [52]. Due to this situation of
alternative legitimacy claims (each one advancing their own system of rules, norms, concepts,
and definitions, but none of them achieving a generalized consensus around them), ethics and
integrity issues in the industry and esports competitions remain significant challenges for
industry stakeholders [53]. In the absence of a legitimate international governing body and the
powerlessness of the publisher, every individual stakeholder needs to uphold fairness in
esports without a generally accepted appropriate system of reference. For instance, match
manipulation and match-fixing are serious issues in some competitive arenas [54]. For some
players it may be more profitable to lose on purpose and bet on your own defeat than to win
the game. If betting platforms cooperate with competition organizers, they can alert them of
suspicious transactions. When this is not the case, or when betting occurs in unregulated
environments, it becomes almost impossible to fight against this phenomenon. It becomes
evident that ‘clean’ esports requires a combined effort of key stakeholders in the respective
ecosystem, thereby highlighting the challenge of creating local solutions that work in specific
legal frameworks and global standards enabling a fair competitive environment. Bodies such
as ESIC work to identify solutions that may bridge this paradox; to create sustainable
solutions, national or federal associations must collaborate to find an efficient solution to this
challenge.
Original Research Article 11
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
Fragmented ecosystem
A corollary effect of this lack of a legitimate common regulating system is that esports is a
fragmented ecosystem. The growth of many digital industries, particularly esports, would
benefit from regulation and frameworks, not only from a legal and economic point of view,
but also to promote its social impact [49]. The fragmentation of the various stakeholders in
the esports ecosystem reveals the absence of formal governance of the sector, leading to drifts
in terms of ethics and integrity. Often it is grassroots actors that shape the markets of esports
[55], consisting of multiple sub-esports ecosystems. These systems may arise from a national
perspective or a specific esports title, making esports highly complex. The struggle of creating
an international governing body reveals the multilevel complexity of achieving validity in the
legitimacy process [56], making esports perhaps ungovernable [5], and requiring new
solutions. Indeed, the story of esports is characterized by bottom-up, community-based
action; for example, in the absence of action from the publisher, it was the players of Super
Smash Bros. themselves that acted as user entrepreneurs to build the competitive scene [57].
Although the primary source of power in any established esports ecosystem lies with the game
publisher, a series of alternative structures co-exist; there are tournament organizers and
streaming platforms that link the specific esports title with each other on a horizontal level
while at the vertical level, national or federal associations help connect the grassroots esports
environment with the pro circuit created by the game publisher. Thereby this fragmented
ecosystem has specific assemblages in the contexts that allow the consolidation of legitimate
systems through mimetic and professionalization processes [58]; embracing this flexibility
may contribute to sustainability in contrast to the coercive enforcement of governing bodies
copied from traditional sports.
Economic sustainability in esports requires an evolution in business logic
We identified the following themes regarding economic sustainability: training and education,
and revenue models.
Training and education
A significant challenge for the sector concerns training of future esports professionals. The
themes identified in the current study’s data directly related to training the players, staff, and
related professions. The process of professionalization within esports started only in the
middle of the 2010s. A dematerialized practice by nature, esports has developed during 2000–
2010 distinct from any formal framework; although this feature constitutes one of its perceived
strengths [5], it may also be a barrier to learning and improving skills necessary for personal
development and access to high performance. Respecting instructions, rationalizing training,
warming up, taking breaks, learning to lose or win, working within a team, and playing a role
within a group are all skills that esports can teach [59-60]. As such, the environments of
schools, universities, and clubs constitute a sound basis for promoting healthy and responsible
practices of esports [61-62]. By structuring the supervision of esports practice from the
youngest age, it is possible to act on several levels: to transmit good practices, to develop
competencies, to identify players with solid potential, and thus to favor the sustainability of
the professional ecosystem. Training players requires the support of coaches, managers, and
analysts who are competent both in the technical specifics of esports practice and experts in
their respective fields (e.g., didactics and pedagogy in coaching, psychology and social
psychology, physiology, economics, marketing and communication, business development,
project management and event management). It is therefore essential to identify the sector’s
needs in terms of professions, develop appropriate training courses, build relevant educational
Original Research Article 12
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
content, and identify the appropriate contributors [63]. Such an approach would benefit both
the staff who supervise the players (from initiation to high level) and the future professionals
who will be active in the sector in the coming years [64]. Numerous training programs,
whether at the school or university level, have been developed worldwide, mainly in Western
Europe and Scandinavia, North America, and Southeast Asia. They offer different formats, are
positioned in various disciplinary fields, and train many professions [65].
Although there are counterexamples in specific esports sectors, notably in the Fighting Games
Community, it is typical for a player’s career to end around the age of 25 years [66]. One
potential explanation for the exhaustion experienced by players is the requirement of high-
level competition in a context where the process of professionalization is still in an early
phase, often asymmetrical, and extremely limited. Stability in a club is difficult to reach,
competition is intense, and few places are available in a sector where being at the lower level is
synonymous with financial instability. As with any other athlete, esports players’ bodies and
minds are the tools of their work, due to the increasing economic, competitive, and media
stakes, players can quickly overuse their bodies and could be unable to establish long-term
and, subsequently, financially rewarding careers [60].
Revenue models
The esports market has been growing strongly since the 2010s, although the COVID pandemic
initiated a slight decline in 2020 [67]. The market is small (barely 1/500th of the sports market)
and strongly dependent on private investments [68]. While game publishers and a few pro-
players can benefit from important revenues, the current esports business model of clubs and
league organizers are seldom profitable [69]. Compared to professional sports, the sources of
income are less diversified: media rights are marginal, ticketing is minimal, sports betting is
undoubtedly growing but not authorized in all countries, public subsidies are rare, and
merchandising is still relatively under-developed [70]. Fundraising, sponsorship, and content
creation are currently the three primary sources of income for esports clubs [71]. Concurrently,
the flexibility of event organizers is decreasing as game publishers regain control of their
intellectual property. Today, almost all esports clubs and event organizers are losing money
and are forced to chase investors to ensure their short-term stability for one event or season
[70-71]; it is apparent that sustainable business models are yet to be discovered within the
esports ecosystem.
Conclusions
We have discovered and discussed emerging themes within esports that explicitly relate to
sustainability; the ability of esports to survive or persist is mainly dependent on how well
industry stakeholders can address these themes. Firstly, we found that social and mental
health as well as diversity and inclusion are vital aspects of ensuring social sustainability. This
led to our first proposition, namely social sustainability in esports requires addressing issues of
health and inclusiveness. Social sustainability is generally considered to encompass more than
the physical well-being and basic needs of human beings [72]. For decades, social
sustainability has encompassed social homogeneity, fair incomes, and access to goods,
services, and employment. To date, esports research has presented a wide range of social
issues related to the industry but has not explicitly linked the discussion to social
sustainability.
Secondly, our data pointed towards incomplete industry structures characterized by
inconsistent industry standards, issues related to governance, institutionalization and
transparency of structures, and a fragmented ecosystem. We thus proposed that social and
Original Research Article 13
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
economic sustainability in esports require stable industry structures, increase of legitimacy, and
decentralized governance. Social and economic sustainability in esports are closely connected
due to the GaaS paradigm; stakeholders aim to enhance the lifecycle of an esports title, which
necessitates sustainability. This form of sustainability is focused on the economic dimension,
but as esports requires players to play the games, social sustainability is necessary to achieve
financial sustainability. Stakeholders must, therefore, establish and nurture an environment in
which the longevity of a game can be sustained. Accordingly, social and economic
sustainability in esports call for stable industry structures, increased legitimacy, and
decentralized governance. Moreover, esports requires a stable and reliable legal framework, at
the very least on the national level [73].
Thirdly, immature business logic emerged as the main theme and resulted in our third
proposition; economic sustainability in esports requires an evolution of business logic. Here,
training and education, and revenue models outline the theme, currently pointing towards a
plethora of business and revenue models, business logic, and professional roles, rather than
established value-creating economically sustainable processes.
We argue and stress that sustainability in esports cannot be merely concerned with securing
business growth (i.e., economic sustainability). While there are emerging themes related to
economic sustainability (i.e., business models, governance, and institutionalization), social
sustainability issues appear to be the current primary concern of most practitioners and
researchers of esports. These are specifically related to inclusiveness, social and mental health,
integrity, transparency, and foremost standards, governance, institutionalization, and
fragmentation in ecosystems.
An issue of note is that there were no clear themes in the data related to environmental
sustainability (i.e., the responsible use of natural resources; an example of which would be the
utilization of sustainable technologies and energy-saving related to gaming and competitive
events). These were not identified by the workshop participants possibly due to their focus
being on the structures and processes within esports rather than supporting factors such as
technology and, in turn, its impact on the esports industry. Academic work has already
seriously underlined the negative impact of digital infrastructures and video games [74-76].
However, little is known about the direct effect of esports on the environment. Given that, in
the contemporary world, we argue that it is impossible to ignore the major ecological crisis
facing the global population. Esports stakeholders should not ignore this challenge
indefinitely; the infinite growth of the sector thus becomes a questionable issue.
Esports represents a future lab for society with opportunities for research in a range of specific
disciplines as well as extensive cross-disciplinary studies. Furthermore, esports stakeholders
and individual actors have increasingly indicated and demonstrated a willingness to work with
researchers to ensure a sustainable future for esports. As esports becomes increasingly
pervasive in developing countries [77-78] the value of understanding the role of esports in a
global digital society and how a sustainable future can be ensured becomes even more
pressing.
While some researchers claim that the concept of sustainability has to a degree lost its meaning
[79], and its vagueness may hinder its application in research [80], the traditional sustainability
perspective allows for analyzing both the current and the potential future state of an emerging
industry. A sustainability perspective points at critical issues that eventually become vital for
the industry. A particular asset of esports is that it is neither clearly structured or governed, and
that a substantial amount of bottom-up activity and enthusiasm is present in the ecosystem.
This provides a viable opportunity to facilitate meaningful change; esports evolved from
Original Research Article 14
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
grassroot communities, and these communities can play a core role in esports sustainability.
Researchers should play an active role in supporting these initiatives.
Declaration of interest statement
The authors report no conflict of interest. This work was supported by the Academy of Finland
project Centre of Excellence in Game Culture Studies (CoE-GameCult, #312396) for author J.M.
Original Research Article 15
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
References
1. Reitman, J. G., Anderson-Coto, M. J., Wu, M., Lee, J. S., & Steinkuehler, C. (2020).
Esports research: A literature review. Games and Culture, 15(1), 32-50.
2. Scholz, T. M. (2020). Afterword: An expert perspective on the future of esports. In D. P.
Hedlund, G. Fried, & R. Smith (eds.), Esports Business Management (pp. 217-220).
Human Kinetics Publishers.
3. Jonasson, K., & Thiborg, J. (2010). Electronic sport and its impact on future sport. Sport
in Society, 13(2), 287-299.
4. Ahn, J., Collis, W., & Jenny, S. (2020). The one billion dollar myth: Methods for sizing
the massively undervalued esports revenue landscape. International Journal of Esports,
1(1). https://www.ijesports.org/article/15/html
5. Scholz, T. M. (2019). eSports is Business. Management in the World of Competitive
Gaming. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
6. Ashton, G. (2019, November 8). League of Legends esports is aiming for full
sustainability in tenth year. The Esports Observer. https://esportsobserver.com/lol-
esports-john-needham-interview
7. United Nations (2019, September 23). Video games industry levels up in fight against
climate change. United Nations. https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-
stories/press-release/video-games-industry-levels-fight-against-climate-change
8. Freitas, B. D. A., Contreras-Espinosa, R. S., & Correia, P. Á. P. (2021). A model of the
threats that disreputable behavior present to esports sponsors. Contemporary
Management Research, 17(1), 27-64.
9. Haji Rasouli, A., & Kumarasuriyar, A. (2016). The social dimension of sustainability:
Towards some definitions and analysis. Journal of Social Science for Policy Implications.
4(2), 23-24.
10. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks. The triple bottom line of 21st century business.
Oxford, UK: Capstone.
11. Ørngreen, R., & Levinsen, K. (2017). Workshops as a research methodology. Electronic
Journal of E-learning, 15(1), 70-81.
12. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J., & Probert, D. R. (2007). Strategic roadmapping: A workshop-
based approach for identifying and exploring strategic issues and opportunities.
Engineering Management Journal, 19(1), 3-12.
13. Conradson, D. (2005). Focus groups. In R. Flowerdew & D. Martin (eds.), Methods in
human geography: A guide for students doing a research project (pp. 128–143). Harlow:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
14. Liamputtong, P. (2011). Focus group methodology: Principle and practice. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
15. Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research, 3rd edition. London: Sage.
16. Wilkinson, S. (2004). Focus groups: A feminist method. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & M. L.
Yaiser (eds.), Feminist perspectives on social research (pp. 271-295). Oxford University
Press.
17. Thoring, K., Mueller, R. M., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2020). Workshops as research
methods. Guidelines for designing and evaluating artifacts through workshops. In:
Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
18. Darsø, L. (2001). Innovation in the making. Fredriksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
19. ERN (2019a, November 21). The 1st ERN Symposium: Developing a sustainable future
for esports in the city of DreamHack. Esports Research Network.
https://esportsresearch.net/2019/11/21/symposium-2019-developing-a-sustainable-
future-for-esports-will-be-hosted-in-the-city-where-its-all-about-the-grassroots
20. ERN (2019b, December 19). Summary of the 1st Esports Research Network Symposium
in Jönköping. Esports Research Network.
Original Research Article 16
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
https://esportsresearch.net/2019/12/19/summary-of-the-1st-esports-research-network-
symposium-in-jonkoping
21. Macnaghten, P., & Myers, G. (2006). Focus groups. Qualitative research practice.
London: Sage.
22. Peterson, E. R., & Barron, K. A. (2007). How to get focus groups talking: New ideas that
will stick. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6(3), 140-144.
23. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
24. Jeong, M. (2020, August 31). What to do about the increasing problem of player
burnout in esports, Esports.net. https://www.esports.net/news/self-care-and-burnout-
in-esports
25. Yin, K., Zi, Y., Zhuang, W., Gao, Y., Tong, Y., Song, L., & Liu, Y. (2020). Linking Esports
to health risks and benefits: Current knowledge and future research needs. Journal of
sport and health science, 9(6), 485-488.
26. Ribeiro, F. J., Viana, V., Borges, N., & Teixeira, V. H. (2021). The emergence of eSports
nutrition: A review. Central European Journal of Sport Sciences and Medicine, 33(1), 81-
95.
27. Choi, C., Hums, M. A., & Bum, C. H. (2018). Impact of the family environment on
juvenile mental health: eSports online game addiction and delinquency. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(12), 2850-2861.
28. Wattanapisit, A., Wattanapisit, S., & Wongsiri, S. (2020). Public health perspectives on
eSports. Public Health Reports, 135(3), 295-298.
29. Garcia, E. (2021, April 13). Xzi retires from professional Overwatch due to medical
condition. Dot Esports. https://dotesports.com/overwatch/news/xzi-retires-from-
professional-overwatch-due-to-medical-condition
30. Michael, C. (2020, July 26). KuroKy to miss OGA Dota PIT Season 2 due to arm injury.
Dot Esports. https://dotesports.com/dota-2/news/kuroky-to-miss-oga-dota-pit-
season-2-due-to-arm-injury
31. Migliore, L., McGee, C., & Moore, M. N. Handbook of Esports Medicine. Clinical
Aspects of Competitive Video Gaming, Springer International Publishing.
32. DiFrancisco-Donoghue, J., Balentine, J., Schmidt, G., & Zwibel, H. (2019). Managing the
health of the eSport athlete: an integrated health management model, BMJ Open Sport
& Exercise Medicine, 5, e000467. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2018-000467
33. Espinosa, M. (2021, November 10). How an esports doctor helps pro gamers avoid
injury, from warm-ups to strength training, Business Insider.
https://www.businessinsider.com/esports-doctor-helping-evil-geniues-players-avoid-
injury-gamerdoc-2021-11?r=US&IR=T
34. Koshy, A., & Koshy, G. M. (2020). The potential of physiological monitoring
technologies in esports. International Journal of Esports, 1(1).
35. Niko Partners (2020). Play like a girl: Key ways to engage one of Asia’s fastest growing
gaming audiences. Niko Partners. https://nikopartners.com/play-like-a-girl-key-ways-
to-engage-one-of-asias-fastest-growing-gaming-audiences
36. France Esports (2020). Barometre 2020. France Esports. https://www.france-
esports.org/barometre-france-esports-resultats-de-ledition-2020
37. Minard-Carneiro, O. & Besombes, N. (2019). Femmes et esport en France. Montaigne In
Game. Presentation at the Université de Bordeaux Montaigne.
38. Austin, J. (2020). “I suppose I’ll be patching you up, as usual”: Women’s roles and
normative femininity in a team-based video game. New Media & Society,
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820972396
39. Condis, M. (2018). Gaming masculinity: Trolls, fake geeks, and the gendered battle for
online culture. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
Original Research Article 17
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
40. Rogstad, E. T. (2021). Gender in eSports research: a literature review. European Journal
for Sport and Society, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/16138171.2021.1930941
41. Taylor, N., & Stout, B. (2020). Gender and the two-tiered system of collegiate esports.
Critical Studies in Media Communication, 37(5), 451-465.
42. Esports earnings. (2021). https://www.esportsearnings.com/players
43. Europe’s video games industry (2020). Key facts 2020. The year we played together.
https://www.isfe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2021-ISFE-EGDF-Key-Facts-
European-video-games-sector-FINAL.pdf
44. Gray, K. L. (2018). Gaming out online: Black lesbian identity development and
community building in Xbox Live. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 22(3), 282-296.
45. Chan, B., & Gray, K. L. (2020). Microstreaming, microcelebrity, and marginalized
masculinity: Pathways to visibility and self-definition for Black men in gaming.
Women’s Studies in Communication, 43(4), 354-362.
46. British Esports Association (2020). Available at
https://britishesports.org/news/diversity-in-esports-initiatives-making-esports-more-
inclusive/, accessed 30 November 2021.
47. Macey, J., Tyrväinen, V., Pirkkalainen, H., & Hamari, J. (2020). Does esports spectating
influence game consumption? Behaviour & Information Technology, 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1797876
48. Coraggio, G., Fitzpatrick, N., White, P.C., Lee, P. (2021, March 16). Esports laws of the
world. DLA Piper.
https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/insights/publications/2019/11/esports-laws-of-the-
world.
49. Hollist, K. E. (2015). Time to be grown-ups about video gaming: the rising eSports
industry and the need for regulation. Arizona Law Review, 57, 823-847.
50. Suchman, M.C. (1995) Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional
approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
51. Parry, J. (2021). Esports will not be at the Olympics. Journal of Olympic Studies, 2(2), 1-
13.
52. Peng, Q., Dickson, G., Scelles, N., Grix, J., & Brannagan, P. M. (2020). Esports
governance: Exploring stakeholder dynamics. Sustainability, 12(19), 8270-8284.
53. Ghoshal, A. (2019). Ethics in esports. Gaming Law Review, 23(5), 338-343.
54. Abarbanel, B., & Johnson, M. R. (2019). Esports consumer perspectives on match-fixing:
implications for gambling awareness and game integrity. International Gambling
Studies, 19(2), 296-311.
55. McCauley, B., Tierney, K., & Tokbaeva, D. (2020a). Shaping a regional offline eSports
market: Understanding how Jönköping, the ‘City of DreamHack’, takes URL to IRL.
International Journal on Media Management, 22(1), 30-48.
56. Bitektine, A. & Haack, P. (2015) The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: Toward a
multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 49-
75.
57. Koch, N., Pongratz, S., McCauley, B., & Achtenhagen, L. (2020). ‘Smashing it’: How
user entrepreneurs drive innovation in esports communities. International Journal of
Esports, 1(1).
58. DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological
Review, 48(2), 147-160.
59. Funk, D. C., Pizzo, A. D., & Baker, B. J. (2018). eSport management: Embracing eSport
education and research opportunities. Sport Management Review, 21(1), 7-13.
60. Smithies, T. D., Toth, A. J., Conroy, E., Ramsbottom, N., Kowal, M., & Campbell, M. J.
(2020). Life after esports: a grand field challenge. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 883.
Original Research Article 18
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
61. Byrne, A. M. (2020). Using esports to teach bystander leadership and collaboration for
students in STEM. About Campus, 25(1), 24-27.
62. Lee, J. S., & Steinkuehler, C. (2019). Esports as a catalyst for connected learning: the
North America Scholastics Esports Federation. XRDS: Crossroads, 25(4), 54-59.
63. Scott, M. J., Summerley, R., Besombes, N., Connolly, C., Gawrysiak, J., Halevi, T., Jenny,
S. E., Miljanovic, M., Stange, M., Taipalus, T., & Williams, J. P. (2022). Foundations for
esports curricula in higher education. In Proceedings of the 2021 Working Group
Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE-WGR
'21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 27–55.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3502870.3506566
64. Rothwell, G., & Shaffer, M. (2019). eSports in K-12 and post-secondary schools.
Education Sciences, 9(2), 105-114.
65. Jenny, S. E., Gawrysiak, J., & Besombes, N. (2021). Esports.edu: An inventory and
analysis of global higher education Esports academic programming and curricula.
International Journal of Esports, 1(1). https://www.ijesports.org/article/59/html
66. Irrota, F. C. (2020, November 10). Retirement in esports: Why do esports players retire
so early?. https://clutchpoints.com/retirement-in-esports-why-do-esports-players-
retire-so-early
67. Newzoo (2021, May 28) Newzoo Adjusts Esports Forecast Further in Wake of the
Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic. Newzoo. https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/esports-
market-revenues-2020-2021-impact-of-covid-19-media-rights-sponsorships-tickets
68. Globe News Wire (2021, March 18). Global sports market report (2021 to 2030) -
COVID-19 impact and recovery. https://www.globenewswire.com/fr/news-
release/2021/03/18/2195540/28124/en/Global-Sports-Market-Report-2021-to-2030-
COVID-19-Impact-and-Recovery.html
69. Scelles, N., Peng, Q., & Valenti, M. (2021). Do the peculiar economics of professional
team sports apply to Esports? Sequential snowballing literature reviews and
implications. Economies, 9(1), 31-48.
70. Mangeloja, E. (2019). Economics of esports. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and
Organization Studies, 24(2), 34-42.
71. Ludwig, S., Lachmann, K., Papenbrock, J., & Mesonero, S. (2021). Let’s play! 2021. The
European esports market. Deloitte Insights.
https://www2.deloitte.com/cz/en/pages/technology-media-and-
telecommunications/articles/esports-market-2021-lets-play.html
72. Peterson, N. (2016). Introduction to the special issue on social sustainability:
integration, context, and governance. Sustainability Science Practice Policy, 12(1), 3-7.
73. Nothelfer, N. & Petschinka, P. (2021). Das Versäumnis des Gesetzgebers in der Causa
eSport und dessen Auswirkungen auf die Praxis. Sport- und E-Sportrecht in der Praxis,
26-31.
74. Gallersdörfer, U., Klaaßen, L., & Stoll, C. (2020). Energy consumption of
cryptocurrencies beyond bitcoin. Joule, 4(9), 1843-1846.
75. Morley, J., Widdicks, K., & Hazas, M. (2018). Digitalisation, energy and data demand:
The impact of Internet traffic on overall and peak electricity consumption. Energy
Research & Social Science, 38, 128-137.
76. Thacker, S., Adshead, D., Fay, M., Hallegatte, S., Harvey, M., Meller, H. & Hall, J. W.
(2019). Infrastructure for sustainable development. Nature Sustainability, 2(4), 324-331.
77. ERN (2020, November 6). Esports in Africa with Sayo Owolabi. Esports Research
Network. https://youtu.be/nWm63_jqqJc
78. McCauley, B., Nguyen, T. H. T., McDonald, M., & Wearing, S. (2020b). Digital gaming
culture in Vietnam: an exploratory study. Leisure Studies, 39(3), 372-386.
Original Research Article 19
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
79. Ben-Eli, M. U. (2018). Sustainability: definition and five core principles, a systems
perspective. Sustainability Science, 13, 1337-1343.
80. Balaceanu, C., & Apostol, D. (2014). The perspective of concept sustainability. Procedia
‐ Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2257–2261.
