Do E-sports deserve Olympic glory?

The opposition to the inclusion of e-sports in major sporting events such as the Olympics and the Asian Games does not amount to rejecting e-sports, let alone looking down on e-sports players.

E-sports athletes train reflexes, tactics and teamwork under intense pressure, and that dedication deserves respect. But being competitive and being suitable for inclusion in a major sporting event are two different things.

The first problem is commercial ownership. Unlike traditional sports, which are not owned by any entity, e-sports are based on commercially developed video games. No company owns the 100-meter sprint; the rules of soccer are not defined by any corporation.

E-sports are significantly different: game titles, source code, characters, servers and tournament licenses are generally controlled by copyright holders. Decisions about which characters can be used, which equipment should be altered and how maps are redesigned are often determined by a company's product strategy.

The removal of Hearthstone from the 19th Asian Games in Hangzhou is a clear example. Despite being one of the scheduled e-sports titles, its place vanished when Blizzard Entertainment and NetEase ended their licensing partnership, ceasing their Chinese mainland operations.

No athlete violated any rule, nor did the game lose competitive value. It was removed from the Asian Games simply because a commercial relationship between two companies had changed.

There is a fundamental difference between commercial interests participating in a sport and a commercial company owning the sport itself. While traditional sports may use tools manufactured by companies, e-sports competitions take place directly inside products owned and controlled by those companies.

Another problem is rules. Large-scale sporting events require stable, transparent rules that can be passed down across generations.

E-sports, by nature, rely on continuous updates. Traditional sports occasionally change rules, but such changes are generally discussed openly by sporting organizations to preserve fairness and safety.

A single change in game values can completely reshape the competitive landscape. Tactics that players have spent years developing can become obsolete overnight after a major version update.

Sporting events can evolve, but their fundamental competitive framework cannot be altered by a software update.

The third issue is the alignment of e-sports with the values traditionally associated with major sporting events.

Once we accept that the content and values of a game must be scrutinized, difficult questions arise.

Which forms of virtual combat are acceptable and which are not? If both involve defeating an opponent, why might a simulated shooting game be excluded while a fantasy game based on magical combat is allowed? Who should draw the line, and can the same standards be applied fairly to games developed by different companies?

Supporters argue that e-sports can attract younger audiences and bring more traffic and attention to traditional sporting events.

But popularity among young people only demonstrates that e-sports deserve to develop. It does not prove that e-sports must be included in major sporting events.

If popularity becomes the main criterion, major events will inevitably follow commercial rankings: choosing the game with the largest user base today, then replacing it tomorrow with a newer product that has greater buzz.

Eventually, the fate of a sporting event could be determined not by its public sporting value, but by which company has the largest player base, the strongest intellectual property and the greatest market influence.

Major sporting events cannot shut themselves off from changes in the times. But innovation does not mean abandoning boundaries.

These events showcase more than victories and defeats. They represent humanity's pursuit of speed, strength, endurance, precision and physical coordination in the real world.

E-sports also require hand-eye coordination, but their competitive conditions are largely determined by software.

How fast a character can run, how much damage an attack can cause and what obstacles appear on a map are ultimately parameters written by developers.

Traditional sports are shaped primarily by the limits of the human body and the physical environment. E-sports are shaped by a rule-based digital world created through product design.

Both can be compelling. But they do not necessarily have to belong to the same competition system.

For this reason, what we oppose is not e-sports as a field.

E-sports can and should build their own world-class competitions and develop their own honors, traditions and institutions.

The IOC's decision to establish a separate Olympic e-sports event is more reasonable than directly incorporating commercial video games into the Olympic program.

True respect for e-sports does not mean placing a "traditional sport" label on it.

It means recognizing e-sports for what they are: a distinctive form of digital competitive culture with its own logic and identity.

The author is an associate professor at the School of Journalism and Communication at Beijing Sport University.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.