There were many raised eyebrows at the announcement of the new IOC Olympic Esports Series which stem from the recommendations made by the IOC Olympic Agenda 20+5, the IOC strategy for the next few years. In particular, it relates to one recommendation to “encourage the development of virtual sports and further engage with video gaming communities”. From one perspective, it might be understandable why the IOC would be interested in video games; much of the modern world takes place in a digital space and the IOC is a global movement founded on the high aspirations of creating a peaceful and better world for everyone. Sport is supposedly a perfect medium for this since the rules are arbitrary (not being allowed to pick up the ball with one’s hands, for instance) and the goals are trivial (putting a ball into the back of a net). In this sense, it is the perfect language for communicating values of peace, love and harmony as after the final whistle is blown, everyone shakes hands and enjoys the friendship competition and striving for excellence brings. So sports in the digital world seems to make perfect sense.
Yet from another perspective, the IOCs attempt to engage with video games seems to either be a cynical attempt to grab yet more power and money, or a complete misunderstanding of what sport is. And from their recent announcements about what esports are going to be included, they also seem to have no idea about what makes successful video games. For instance, none of the most popular esports have been included, such as DOTA 2, Fortnight, Overwatch, League of Legends or even the game that most closely represents an Olympic sport, in the form of EA’s FIFA series. Instead, the IOC have announced the following six esports: archery, baseball, chess, cycling, dance, motor racing, sailing, taekwondo, and tennis.
What is first noticeable is that they are all representatives of real sports with the exception of chess. Chess is an interesting inclusion as in some contexts and cultures chess is defined as a sport, but the difference between chess and all of the other real instantiations of the above sports, is that chess requires no physical skill. In theory, you could play chess without moving a single piece yourself – hence how the virtual version of chess is absolutely no different in the skills it requires from the in-person version using a three dimensional board. Chess requires significant mental skill but it requires absolutely zero physical skill. In contrast, all of the other real versions of the esports require physical skill. Even the most static of those, archery, requires a significant amount of physical skill and strength to draw the bow and release the arrow towards the target. However, perhaps because chess is clearly a globally popular game with a distinguished cultural history, it’s why the IOC would want to include it.
Despite the fact that they share some resemblance with real sports, most of the other esports listed are also just video games: the IOC esport versions of archery, baseball, motorsport, sailing, taekwondo and tennis are more akin to the diversionary free apps that many of us download to while away a few minutes on a train, or the cartoony games of the Nintendo switch. And although the baseball, motor sport and sailing games are established games with global competitions, the others are newly created games that have no current fan base or history.
The reported reason that many of the new IOC esports are not the most popular and established online games is four-fold: that they are too violent and therefore do not appropriately encompass the Olympic spirit; that there are legal issues around commercialisation and franchising for some of the more established esports; that esports are dominated by men and the new IOC esports are supposed to be more female friendly; and that the newly designed esports are an attempt to democratise competition in that they do not require expensive computer hardware to play. In theory, anyone with a mobile phone can sign up and become an Olympic gold medallist. Clearly, some of these reasons are absurd, since violence or commercialisation has never stopped boxing being embraced as an Olympic sport, and that it remains to be seen how many women will be drawn into the new esports or how democratising they will be to those in poorer communities.
This leaves the two sports that arguably have a claim to actually be sports; cycling and dance. The esport cycling utilises the popular brands of Zwift, which at least requires participants to move their bodies in a way that resembles real-life cycling, since their virtual cyclist avatar only moves with the rotation of real-life pedals. Indeed, this form of cycling became the de facto form of competition during the covid19 pandemic when real competitions and travel were unviable. Nevertheless, esport cycling is arguably an anaemic version of road racing since you don’t have to steer, navigate different road surfaces, weather conditions or avoid other competitors. Plus, you’re very unlikely to end up with a broken collarbone if you somehow fall off. It is effectively the cycling form of indoor rowing, which though a popular form of competition in itself, definitely does not require the same skill as rowing on the water against other boats.
So, it is perhaps the most unlikely IOC esport that has the greatest claim to actually being a sport worthy of Olympic competition; in the form of JustDance, the video game that reached its heights on game consoles in the early 2000s. JustDance involves moving the feet in time to music and mirroring the movements of an onscreen avatar who performs the actions a split second earlier. If sport is designed as a competitive activity that involves gross motor control in the form of physical skill, then the movements and energy required to compete in the IOC’s dance esport fulfils the criteria. Interestingly though, it seems that this is also the least democratic IOC esport in that competition is by invitation only. Which is a shame as I think I would have been in with a chance at winning.
Philosophical thought... 