Sport, in all its forms, is living through a period of mutation. If in the past technology was limited to broadcasting, performance analysis, or audience engagement, today it is already competing for the spotlight as stage, arena, and even the very essence of the sporting practice.

What does Certification 18 and 18A have to do with athletes' participation in the management of sports entities, access to public resources, mandatory documentation and management focused on transparency and good governance?

Since 2009, I have used a term in lectures and debates I have been invited to participate in, which has become common in the sports field: the “International Pyramid System of Sport,”.

I am writing this article from a personal point of view. I do not represent, nor speak on behalf of, any organization or private company — not even my own companies or organizations. Here, I speak solely for myself.

An Analysis of Intellectual Property, Sports Practice, and the Institutional Sports Scope

The publisher or developer is and always will be the owner of what they create and develop — the game, its brands, its infrastructure, and its official events. This sovereignty is widely recognized and respected: what is produced and organized by the publisher in their own championships belongs to them and will continue to do so.

After 21 years within electronic sports, which now includes new divisions such as digital sports (virtual, simulated, and metaverse), I can say with complete certainty—based on experience and facts—that we are still far from becoming a fully recognized and structurally reliable sports class, at least within institutional esports (federative system).