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.

After 21 years of developing Esports, both in the private sector and, particularly, on the institutional (federative) side, and having participated in numerous organizations in different roles, I feel I can share my personal thoughts, perspectives, concerns, and insights regarding certain movements within the Esports landscape.

You may disagree with me, and even criticize or vilify my opinions. Conversely, you may agree or support them — even if not openly or publicly — for personal reasons, caution, or simply neutrality. That choice is entirely yours. Just as you are free to decide how to use the information shared here, I am equally free to offer it openly and without hesitation.

This paper analyzes the growing political and economic appropriation of Esports by private and state actors, with particular attention to Saudi Arabia's role in financing events such as the World Esports Cup and in its efforts to capture the global ecosystem. The analysis begins with a key distinction between the institutional sphere (federations, confederations, and consortia) and the private sphere (publishers, promoters, and commercial companies).

The legitimacy and indispensability of both poles is recognized, but the need to ensure a multipolar and representative model is defended , in which the International Esports Federation (IESF) occupies the center of global governance, supported by continental entities such as PAMESCO, AESF, ACES, and EEF , in contrast to hegemonic initiatives. The paper also proposes concrete measures of resistance, including cooperation protocols, international audits, the creation of a dedicated arbitration tribunal for Esports, and the formalization of balanced public-private partnerships.

 

Thoughts and a little bit of reflection...

It is not unusual for a nation to support or promote a sport, often in cooperation with the Olympic Movement. What does seem unusual, however, is for a nation — without any history, tradition, or previous involvement in each discipline and especially Esports — to try to take control of it simply because it has the financial resources to host major events. Even more so when the execution of these events relies heavily on experienced companies from Europe or the Americas, rather than on domestic expertise.

The fact that the Olympic Movement and other international authorities seem to accept this approach as normal raises an important question: should football then be negotiated by Brazil, basketball by the United States, gymnastics or table tennis by China, and so forth? Would this not be equally strange?

Even stranger is the fact that individuals from this very same nation are directly involved within both international federations currently seeking global recognition — not only through the Olympic Movement, but as the legitimate governing authorities for Esports worldwide. Can anyone truly believe this is a coincidence? In my view, it is not. This is clearly a strategic and deliberate move, designed to ensure that the nation in question can influence, and ultimately control, the direction of decision-making in Esports governance.

Is this in any way legitimate, transparent, or acceptable under the principles of international sport? Of course not. And yet, the international community seems ready to normalize it, simply because there is money on the table.

This issue becomes even more complex when considering that the nation currently positioning itself in this way is Saudi Arabia — a country where fundamental concerns remain regarding freedom of expression, gender equality, and basic human rights. How can a country where something as ordinary as celebrating a victory with a glass of champagne immediately turn into a legal offense. Just as a reminder and example of a simple point: the consumption of alcohol is strictly prohibited under the law, and anyone caught with it can face arrest, heavy fines, imprisonment, and even deportation in the case of foreigners. What is considered a normal, joyful, and symbolic act of celebration in much of the world — raising a toast — becomes a punishable crime there. This simple example highlights the clash of values: while Esports are global, youthful, and expressive by nature, the framework being imposed by such leadership carries restrictions that contradict the very spirit of freedom and openness that Esports represent. If celebrating a victory with a glass of champagne is forbidden, due to cultural and religious restrictions, the very same nation to be allowed to lead an entire sport on the global stage without scrutiny? Shouldn’t these values and contexts be considered before accepting such leadership? Or is money alone enough to justify it?

 

And here we have the conceptual and disruptive understanding of those under the Esports umbrella...

Another dimension that cannot be overlooked is the fact that Esports deal primarily with young people. This raises a fundamental question: what values are being conveyed through such leadership? Not whether they are inherently good or bad, but whether they truly align with the aspirations, principles, and cultural perspectives of most societies — particularly in the West or even in the East.

Esports are a disruptive, unique, and even rebellious form of sport, often celebrated precisely because of their innovative and nonconformist spirit. So, what happens when the leadership of such a movement is shaped by values that may not resonate with that spirit — or even contradict it? What lessons, consciously or not, are being absorbed by the youth who are most engaged with this ecosystem?

These values will inevitably permeate homes and shape the mindset of a generation. The question is: do they reflect the diversity, openness, and freedom that Esports naturally embody? Or even the equality, human rights preserved through sports and other values so well know from the Olympism and Olympic Movement? Or do they risk imposing frameworks that clash with the very identity of this young, disruptive, and global community?

Part I – Introduction and Context

The growth of the global Esports ecosystem

The global Esports market has grown exponentially over the past decade, reaching an estimated audience of over 600 million viewers by 2024.¹ This growth is not limited to the economic dimension, but also includes the consolidation of careers for athletes, media professionals, managers, and coaches, as well as the institutionalization of competitions at the national and international levels.²

It should be considered a growing sociocultural and economic phenomenon, with significant impacts on education, social inclusion, and global economic development. However, the absence of a consolidated system of international governance opens the door to attempts at hegemonic capture .

Recently, Saudi Arabia has assumed a prominent role, organizing the World Esports Cup since 2023 and creating parallel legitimization mechanisms—such as the World Esports Cup Foundation —in a clear competition for prominence with already established institutions, such as the International Esports Federation (IESF) . This movement is accompanied by the country's broader geopolitical initiatives in the field of sports, aimed at increasing influence in the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and consolidating political and economic leadership through digital sports. Dangerous scenery, more over when you have the same stakeholders being part of IESF, GEF and World Esports Cup Foundation (same family/companies), as well as the conversations between Esports (while an ecosystem) and the IOC - International Olympic Committee.

While the visibility of major private tournaments, such as the World Esports Cup , is high, it is crucial to distinguish superficial growth from structural and sustainable development . Isolated events, even if attractive and well-funded, do not replace the need for clear rules, legitimate national federations, and international confederations, integrated into a consolidated sports governance structure.³

This article aims to analyze this appropriation process, differentiating the roles of the private and institutional sectors, recognizing historical failures (such as the one man show in certain federations) and proposing paths of resistance to the advance of hegemonic structures.

The Danger of Confusing Event with Development

Many claim that "Saudi events help Esports." This statement sounds positive, but it's dangerous. Confusing spectacle with development is like believing that a billion-dollar friendly soccer match, without clubs, national championships, or federations, would strengthen global soccer.

It is not the momentary greatness of a tournament that guarantees sustainability, but rather the existence of solid institutions, national federations, governance rules, public policies and integration with the sports system.

The Saudi World Esports Cup is a private event, created to strengthen the political image of the country and specific leaders (such as some officials or individuals connected to this event, who simultaneously hold positions at the IESF and the GEF). This isn't "help"—it's appropriation.

The Amplification of Impact in the Digital Age

The current era, marked by unprecedented access to social media and digital platforms, undeniably amplifies the reach of initiatives like those led by Saudi Arabia. Events such as the World Esports Cup benefit from this hyperconnectivity, drawing massive global audiences—often exceeding 600 million viewers—through real-time engagement and viral promotion across platforms.

Yet, this is not a phenomenon unique to recent efforts. Looking back, the WCA World Cyber Arena, held from 2015 to 2019, exemplified a robust global structure with national qualifiers, regional rounds, and finals in China, involving around 800 athletes representing their countries over nine days. Similarly, single-franchise tournaments like The International by Valve, the League of Legends World Championship, and Intel’s events have long gathered comparable viewerships, built on years of community engagement and competitive integrity.

These historical efforts, initiated and sustained by publishers, private initiatives through private event companies and federations, laid the groundwork for the hype that Esports enjoys today. The World Esports Cup, while impressive in scale and funding, rides this wave of momentum, leveraging the infrastructure and passion cultivated by others since the mid-2010s. In my view, this highlights a critical nuance: the visibility and impact of Saudi-led events are not solely the result of innovative leadership but rather an inheritance from a global ecosystem that predates and transcends their involvement, especially focused on higher prize pools, and nothing more, the fireworks and pyrotechnics have been there for quite a while. While the digital age magnifies their reach, it also underscores the need to credit the foundational work of entities like the IESF and continental confederations, whose sustainable models contrast with the short-term spectacle of politically driven tournaments.

Acknowledging Potential Benefits Amid Concerns

While the risks of conflating high-profile events with genuine ecosystem development are evident, it is only fair to acknowledge that Saudi Arabia's investments have yielded tangible, albeit limited, achievements that merit consideration.

These contributions, driven by the National Gaming and Esports Strategy launched under Vision 2030, aim to diversify the economy beyond oil and position the Kingdom as a global hub for digital entertainment. For instance, the strategy projects the creation of up to 39,000 jobs in the sector by 2030, alongside a projected economic contribution of US$13.3 billion to GDP, fostering opportunities in game development, event management, and content creation. This has already begun to materialize through initiatives like the Saudi eLeague, which has elevated esports in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region by offering substantial prize pools—such as the US$60 million for the Esports World Cup—and supporting talent development programs that attract international players and coaches.

In a region where esports infrastructure was historically underdeveloped, Saudi investments have spurred grassroots programs, including training academies and university partnerships, potentially benefiting young athletes in MENA by providing scholarships, career pathways, and exposure to global standards.

However, these benefits must be weighed against the broader concerns outlined earlier. While job creation and economic influx are positive, they often prioritize short-term spectacle over long-term institutional sustainability, and the reliance on foreign expertise raises questions about genuine domestic empowerment.

Nonetheless, giving credit where due—such as to the economic diversification and regional uplift—allows for a more balanced dialogue, encouraging collaborative reforms rather than outright rejection. In my view, true progress would involve channeling these resources into multipolar governance, ensuring that financial power serves the global community's values of inclusivity and transparency.

 

Fundamental concepts of distinction: publishers, states and institutional entities

Conceptual Foundations: Institutional vs. Private

The first essential distinction is between the institutional and private spheres :

• Institutional : represented by entities such as IESF (global), PAMESCO, AESF, ACES and EEF (continental) and national federations, responsible for training, public policies, governance, social inclusion and sports regulation .
• Private : formed by publishers (Riot Games, Valve , Tencent, among others) and commercial tournament promoters. These are legitimate owners of the games and control their private ecosystems.

Cooperation between these two poles is essential: publishers guarantee innovation and products, while institutional entities build sports careers, educational bases and systems of public legitimacy .

The danger arises when political or private actors attempt to blur the roles , presenting commercial events as substitutes for institutional governance — which compromises the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem.

The global Esports ecosystem is hybrid, involving:

• Publishers : holders of intellectual property, responsible for the development of games and competitive models;
• States and national federations : seeking integration with public sports and education policies;
• International entities : such as IESF, AESF and WESCO, responsible for standardizing rules, recognizing athletes and integrating into the Olympic movement⁴.

The absence of robust governance creates loopholes for external actors, notably states with significant economic capacity, to hold events that appear to “strengthen” the sector, but whose real strategic objective is political and institutional appropriation ⁵.

Not every investment in visibility guarantees sustainability. True empowerment lies in structured careers, functional federations, and grassroots policies for athletes and Esports professionals.

 

Part II – Legal and Sporting Fundamentals

As an example, the National Sports System in Brazil: Constitution and Laws

I have written two articles that specifically address this subject, available here on Linkedin and on my personal website. However, we will briefly mention some of them in this article for an institutional understanding of the international sports pyramid system.

The Brazilian sports ecosystem is regulated by the 1988 Federal Constitution (art. 217), which defines sport as a right for all and a duty of the State, and establishes principles of universality and inclusion⁸. The National Sports System (SINESP) organizes the actions of the State, private entities, and confederations, ensuring the participation of athletes, coaches, and managers in the formulation of public policies⁹.

Law No. 14,369/2023, known as the General Sports Law (LGE) , modernized the regulatory framework, incorporating Esports into the concept of institutional sports practice¹⁰. Articles 18 and 18-A stand out , establishing:

• Effective participation of athletes in decisions made by confederations and federations;
• Transparency in financial management and public transfers;
• Creation of specific committees to represent practitioners’ interests.

These devices are fundamental to prevent the centralization of power in individuals ( one man show ) and to protect the ecosystem from external influences or distorted private interests¹¹.

 

The General Sports Law and Articles 18 and 18-A

Articles 18 and 18-A of the LGE stand out for establishing:

• Athletes' commissions : mandatory in all national confederations;
• Financial transparency : mandatory detailed annual reporting;
• Participatory governance : strategic decisions must involve representatives of athletes, clubs and state federations¹².

These mechanisms are essential to ensure that high-visibility events do not replace institutional legitimacy, and to prevent private initiatives, even those with large budgets, from capturing the ecosystem and unilaterally directing policies.

 

Comparison with international systems

• China and South Korea : Integration of Esports with national federations, universities, and grassroots programs. Private investments are complementary and overseen by public entities.
• Russia : creation of national Esports federations with government recognition and alignment with public digital sports policies.
• Europe and FIFA/IOC : private tournaments are regulated and subordinate to the federations, avoiding capture by isolated commercial interests¹⁴.

The Saudi case differs substantially: events like the World Esports Cup do not follow principles of institutional integration; they are promoted with a focus on soft power and political projection , not on the sustainable development of athletes, clubs, and federations.

 

 

Part III – Intellectual Property and the Institutional Sports Scope

The article “Do Esports have an owner?” – summary and practical application

The debate over intellectual property in Esports is central. Digital games are cultural products protected by IP laws, but competitive practice resembles traditional sports, with athletes, rules, and organizations. As discussed in the article *"Do Esports have an owner?" *¹, balance requires recognizing that:

• Publishers hold rights to game content and rules, private competitions;
• Confederations and federations must organize and legitimize the federative institutional competitive practice, ensuring integrity, standardization and sustainable development of athletes²;
• Athletes and clubs need legal recognition equivalent to that of traditional sports, with contracts, labor protection and participatory governance mechanisms³.

To say that only the publisher "owns Esports" ignores the ecosystem. Just as soccer isn't owned by FIFA or Nike, Esports exist at the intersection of cultural product and institutional sporting practice.

 

The hybrid nature of Esports: between cultural product and sporting practice

Esports have a legal and sporting duality :

1. Cultural product : protected by copyright, patents and trademarks .
2. Sports practice : requires regulation of competitions, careers and athletic development⁴.

This duality explains why events like the World Esports Cup , while visually impressive, do not guarantee sustainability , as they ignore the institutional mechanisms that regulate athletes, federations and public policies.

 

Publishers as holders, Confederations as orderers

The ideal model recognizes:

• Publishers : create content, define mechanics, prizes and formats, private competitions and promotional events, promote and organize their own private competitive events;
• National/international confederations : legitimize institutional rules, supervise institutional competitions, regulate careers, and ensure integrity⁵;
• Athletes and clubs : participate in an organized manner, with clear rights and duties.

Applied example:
IESF, WESCO (mixed hybrid), PAMESCO, AESF and ACES (and nationally some Esports administration entities), for example, work on this model to ensure balance between intellectual property and institutional sports practice , unlike the centralized Saudi model, where the event is used as a political tool.

The Role of IESF and Continental Entities

Founded in 2008, the International Esports Federation (IESF) is the most established international sports organization representing Esports, bringing together more than 140 member countries. Its mission is to align itself with the Olympic model by promoting global championships (such as the World Esports Championship ), integrity regulations , educational programs, and institutional recognition for athletes and federations.

In addition to the IESF, the international ecosystem is supported by continental federations , which function as regional pillars:

• PAMESCO ( Pan-American Esports Confederation): connects the Americas and strengthens continental integration.
• AESF ( Asian Electronic Sports Federation): structured in Asia, with South Korea and China as protagonists, it is a model of public-private cooperation.
• ACES (African Confederation of Esports): strengthens digital inclusion and training on the African continent.
• EEF ( European Esports Federation): integrates European countries and dialogues with European Union institutions.

This multipolar set constitutes the legitimate governance network , opposing parallel initiatives of a commercial or political nature.

WESCO – World Esports Consortium’s role

Founded in 2016, active in continents such as Africa, the Americas and some Asian countries , it played a crucial role in supporting African entities and their foundations, as well as entities on the American continent, and continental institutions such as PAMESCO and ACES.

It is not an isolated entity promoting Esports competitions, but rather a global consortium with an institutional character. Its main role is to structure public policies and promote the sustainable development of Esports on various fronts.

It values expanding institutional partnerships: integrating governments, universities, federations, and clubs through business models and projects offered to members and partners, fostering a grassroots, training, and career ecosystem. The World Esports Consortium (WESCO) acts as a complementary institutional consortium, not competing directly with the IESF, but offering:

1. Educational projects and social inclusion: implementation of training programs, technical training and development of young athletes, promoting diversity and inclusion;
2. Legislative support and governance: guidance to governments and institutions on regulation, legislation and public policy models aimed at Esports;
3. Business models and sustainability: creating economic and operational strategies for events, competitions and summits , enabling governments, institutions and partners to obtain sustainable returns;
4. Operation of events, summits and competitions: planning and execution of international events, ensuring compliance with institutional standards and good governance practices;

• Public policies and legislative support;
• Educational and social inclusion projects;
• Sustainable business models for governments and partners;
• Organization of summits , conferences and international competitions.

Its role is instrumental and supportive , and promotes business models through Esports , ensuring strategic and institutional tools that enhance the work of national and continental federations.

Comparisons International Salutary

• China: with strong state regulation and publishers such as Tencent and NetEase , it has managed to articulate public policies, regulation of gaming time and educational programs , preserving national sovereignty.
• South Korea: a historic example, where the government, federations, and publishers work together to ensure recognition for athletes and a consolidated sports base.
• Russia: Strengthens national federations and recognizes Esports athletes as special professionals, guaranteeing labor protection.

These models demonstrate that it is possible to balance private and institutional interests without allowing hegemonic capture .

 

The GEF and its institutional irrelevance

The Global Esports Federation (GEF) , created in 2020, presents itself as an international organization, but has yet to establish legitimacy in the sports world. The lack of effective federative representation, dependence on private sponsorships, and the promotion of commercial events with little real integration with athletes and national federations limit its relevance.

In this work, the GEF is not considered a decisive actor in the governance of Esports, since its role is more promotional and marketing than institutional.

Its role on the global stage is instrumental and political, not structural. Therefore, its analysis was omitted in previous articles and remains so here, with mention only in the context of external strategy.

 

One Man Show Entities

The article “Esports and One Man Show Entities”: mea culpa and constructive criticism

The history of Esports shows that many federations were born dependent on individual leaders . The aforementioned article¹² highlighted that:

• Concentrating power in one person weakens governance;
• The lack of representation of athletes and clubs allows unilateral decisions;
• This model opens space for external interventions by economic or state actors.

 

The need for transition to collegial governance

Strengthening the ecosystem involves:

• Athletes' commissions (Art. 18 and 18-A of the LGE);
• Deliberative councils with clubs, state federations and confederations;
• Clear and periodic accountability , with independent audits¹³.

This reduces the risk of private events overriding collective interests and prevents international institutions from being captured by external agendas.

 

How the weakness of the one man show opens space for Saudi Arabia

The lack of robust governance has allowed the Saudis to:

• Focus media and resources on the World Esports Cup ;
• They tried to weaken the IESF and even manipulate the GEF (institutionally irrelevant);
• Create parallel structures ( World Esports Cup Foundation ) focusing on political influence and soft power ⁶.

Not even a solid federation would be immune, but collegial and transparent models make capture much more difficult.

It must be acknowledged: part of the problem that opens the door to external capture movements is internal. Many Esports federations and confederations around the world were born under the " one man show”, led by charismatic individuals, but without a solid institutional structure.

This model, while it helped initiate the process of organizing Esports, created weaknesses: excessive personalism, little transparency, a lack of governance, and a reliance on individual figures. This fragility is precisely what allows major powers like Saudi Arabia to emerge offering "magic bullets" in the form of money and events.

THE INSTITUTIONAL ORIGINS FOR A “MEA CULPA”

The IESF should have always implemented a clear public policy to educate its members on the fundamental principle of the international pyramidal sports system: there can be only one international federation, one continental body, and one national governing body. In addition, it should have provided guidance on creating a sustainable ecosystem — both financially and organizationally — for itself and its members. This would have included preparing coordinated documentation for governments, engaging with national and regional sports authorities, and collaborating with other relevant stakeholders.

By focusing primarily on annual competitions, without questioning or demanding proper national ranking systems and other essential structures of a national sports organization, and by providing “free” support such as air tickets, accommodation, and meals, the IESF inadvertently created a dependent and flawed standard for engagement with Esports — as I have extensively discussed in my other article.

Had the IESF pursued the approach described above, national governing bodies accepted as members would not have felt threatened or misunderstood by internal competition from other organizations attempting to occupy their position or gain relevance with governments and institutions. Furthermore, if the IESF had consistently applied these principles to its own governance, members would not have felt compelled to affiliate with every emerging international organization out of fear of being replaced.

This fear was also connected to questions of recognition by international authorities or even by the Olympic Movement. Consequently, many members — often represented by a single individual (“one-man shows”) — chose to affiliate simultaneously with both the IESF and its so-called competitor, such as the GEF, which, while largely irrelevant, continues to exist in the Esports landscape.

Now, the IESF’s management and internal processes are changing from the inside out — not through initiatives of its presidency, but through the efforts of others within the organization who are trying to do their best. Better late than never.

 

The article “Esports and One Man Show Entities” already pointed out: the legitimate path is participatory institutionalization , with athletes, clubs, national federations and international organizations working together, and not around isolated figures.

 

Part V – Brief Critique of the Saudi Movement

Essential distinction: institutional vs. private

The Esports ecosystem is hybrid:

• Institutional (e.g., WESCO, IESF, PAMESCO, CBDEL): Responsible for training, foundations, sports careers, governance, and sustainability of the sector. Their role is to manage the ecosystem as a whole, ensuring that athletes, clubs, and federations have structured pathways and legal recognition.
• Private ( publishers , tournament and content companies): These companies will always own their products and services and maintain their own ecosystem. They have competitive promotional events, among other things. However, they can and should collaborate with institutional entities, contributing resources, visibility, and innovation, while institutional entities ensure training, foundation, and sports careers.

This distinction makes it clear that the ecosystem's legitimacy, sustainability, and integrity depend on a balanced interaction between the private and institutional sectors, where each party fulfills its role without undue overlap. Private events, however attractive, are no substitute for federations, confederations, and public policies for athlete development.

 

The Saudi Capture and the Weakening of International Entities Already Created for the Institutional Development of Esports (IESF)

If there were genuine interest in "helping," the Saudis would strengthen the IESF (founded in 2008), an organization that has been fighting for years for the institutional legitimacy of Esports. Regardless of whether some of the presidents of the aforementioned organization hold positions elsewhere, this in itself is already a dubious, conflicting motive, and a pretense of hegemony or long-term planning for appropriation of a scenario that is inherently fragile and lacks understanding and political experience, as well as practical experience of sports as an institutionalized movement. This opens doors for people with this knowledge or who are advised by people hired for this role with dubious intentions, despite the inclusive discourse of partnership and consolidation through the understanding that everyone must unite.

Instead, the IESF president even attempted to defund the 2024 World Esports Championship , organized by the Saudi Esports Federation itself, clearly diverting his efforts to the World Esports Cup or events where his interests and those of his family leave a legacy and return on his planning and ideals, whatever they may be. This demonstrates that the goal is not to consolidate global institutions, but to weaken them for the benefit of a particular project.

Now, in addition to the event, the World Esports Cup Foundation and the World Esports Cup Nation versus Nation event have emerged, a clear attempt to replace both the IESF and the GEF with a third entity, controlled by the Saudis and apparently aligned with the IOC to capture the Olympic space. There's even talk that if there isn't a "merge" between the entities, which is technically and conceptually impossible, another entity will be created that isn't even the WEC Foundation, also orchestrated by the same actors.

 

Why Saudi Arabia presents itself as a “global protagonist”

Since 2023, Saudi Arabia has hosted the World Esports Cup , a high-budget event that attracts international attention. Leading this project are individuals who also serve as president and vice president, simultaneously serving as president of the IESF (founded in 2008) and vice president of the GEF (created in 2020). This dual role allows resources and visibility to be directed toward its own events, to the detriment of legitimate initiatives such as the 2024 World Esports Championship , originally organized by the IESF itself.⁶

This strategy is not limited to isolated events, but seeks to establish a parallel structure ( World Esports Cup Foundation ) capable of replacing established international organizations, integrating with the IOC as a tool of political influence.⁷ All this considering that the World Esports Cup event and the new Nation versus Nation have private characteristics and are competitive entertainment rather than institutional.

Saudi Arabian rhetoric

Saudi narratives explore:

1. Visibility : fans, million-dollar prizes and international marketing;
2. Soft power : rapprochement with the IOC and diplomatic projection;
3. Centralization : unilateral decision on events, rules and dissemination¹⁴.

Although they present an apparent contribution to the ecosystem, the real focus is political instrumentalization , not sustainable athletic or institutional development.

• Institutional legitimacy: IESF, PAMESCO, AESF, ACES and WESCO (hybrid mixed), have historical and legal recognition;
• Decentralization: Confederations and local federations guarantee autonomy and careers for athletes;
• Sustainability: Structured careers and core programs survive fluctuations in interest or external investment¹⁵.

Example:
A high-investment tournament, without institutional regulation, does not create career athletes, strong clubs or federations — it disappears when the money runs out.

 

Naive rhetoric

“But it doesn’t matter, the event is big, it gives visibility, it helps Esports.”

• Visibility without structure is not help, it is a showcase.
• The legacy is not in million-dollar prizes, but in recognized careers, strong institutions and social inclusion.
• Accepting that “any event helps” is to renounce autonomy and hand over Esports to private and geopolitical interests.
• Anyone who says "they help Esports" ignores the fact that this doesn't create careers for athletes , generate public policies, create grassroots structures, or strengthen national federations. On the contrary, it creates an artificial environment for major events and prizes, which disappears as soon as political funding is redirected. This is dependency, not development .

Yes, we have made mistakes in the past by accepting centralized “ one man show.” But we learned: the solution is not to exchange one owner for another, but to build collective governance.

World Esports Cup – Nation versus Nation danger

The model of “nation versus nation” competition in the World Esport Cup, at first glance, appears attractive and legitimate. However, the central question is: who organizes, who recognizes, and who validates the representatives of each country? If the WEC attempts to work through National Olympic Committees (NOCs), the issue arises that NOCs have no direct competence over esports, since esports are not yet officially recognized by the IOC. Furthermore, each NOC usually relies on national federations, but which federations would they rely upon? Those recognized by the IESF, or by the Global Esports Federation, or even by independent organizations that exist in several countries? This opens a vacuum of legality and legitimacy, allowing NOCs to invent qualification systems without respecting the organized esports structures already in place.

If the WEC chooses to work with national esports federations directly, the situation remains problematic, since many countries have competing bodies — some affiliated with the IESF, others with the GEF, and even fully independent ones. Such a scenario would inevitably produce disputes of legitimacy and political favoritism, potentially excluding federations that have been legitimately operating in favor of others more aligned with diplomatic or financial interests.

The most concerning scenario, however, is the creation of a parallel private structure, which is the approach most consistent with the Saudi model. In this case, Saudi Arabia could simply designate “partners” in each country, bypassing both NOCs and federations, and allowing private groups or individuals to select athletes and assemble national teams. This model raises immediate risks: lack of legitimacy, conflicts of interest, and political manipulation, all of which undermine the governance and credibility of esports institutions.

From a legal and governance standpoint, any use of national representation in sport is tied to the official sports movement of each country. If the WEC circumvents this and establishes its own private system, the result is a tournament that looks “Olympic” in structure but has no legal or institutional foundation. The perception problem is immense, since governments, athletes, and the media may interpret such initiatives as official, when in fact they are merely private ventures with financial backing.

What is most damaging, however, goes beyond governance and legality: it is the message this sends to the athletes. As we have stressed in other parts of this article, this example is not a healthy one. What message do you give to athletes who want to build a career, to be federated, to be part of a legitimate structure that guarantees recognition and rights? The message becomes disruptive: that institutional work is irrelevant, and that private money can create shortcuts, bypassing federations and careers that athletes have worked hard to pursue. For the young player who dreams of being part of an institutionalized career path, this sends the wrong signal — that the market is unstable, subject to arbitrary decisions, and detached from the governance structures that give sport its credibility. Once again, this example is deeply negative, because instead of building trust and institutionalization, it undermines the long-term foundations of esports, replacing them with opportunism.

Ultimately, the Saudi-led model represents a direct threat to the institutional work that has been built for years. By ignoring federations affiliated with IESF, GEF, or other legitimate national bodies, the WEC risks fueling fragmentation, conflict, and disarray in the global esports ecosystem. What should be a unifying competition risks becoming a disruptive showcase of power, eroding credibility instead of strengthening the governance and recognition that esports needs.

For governments and international organizations, this raises an additional alarm. When a competition bypasses the established federative system, it also undermines the sovereign role of states in regulating sport within their territories. Governments that have been working on sports policy, recognition of esports, and integration into broader youth and education strategies may find themselves marginalized by a privately imposed model with no accountability. For intergovernmental organizations and the Olympic Movement, this presents a dangerous precedent: if esports can be hijacked by financial power without adherence to institutional governance, then the very principles of sport as a tool for diplomacy, education, and youth development are weakened. This is not just a problem for esports; it is a problem for the credibility of international sport governance as a whole.

 

In short terms:

• Legitimacy gap: Who decides the national representatives — NOCs, federations, or private partners? No clarity, no governance.
• Conflicting bodies: Many countries have more than one federation (IESF, GEF, or independent). Choosing one arbitrarily fuels conflict.
• Private structure risk: Saudi Arabia may bypass all federations and simply appoint private groups. This undermines institutional governance.
• Legal inconsistency: In sport, national representation is tied to official recognition. WEC cannot claim legitimacy without respecting this.
• Negative example to athletes: Sends the wrong signal to young players who want a federated, institutionalized career path. Destabilizes the market and careers.
• Disruption, not progress: Instead of strengthening esports, the WEC risks fragmenting and confusing the system, privileging opportunism over credibility.
• Impact on governments: Such a model sidelines national sports policy, creating friction between private initiatives and state sovereignty in sport.
• Threat to international governance: If allowed, this precedent undermines not only esports but the Olympic Movement’s credibility, showing that private financial power can bypass federative and institutional legitimacy.

 

Part VI – Conclusion and Future Directions

The role of National Confederations

• Organize athletes, clubs and state federations;
• Ensure effective representation and transparent governance;
• Protect practitioners' careers and rights.

 

Suggested points of standardization of Institutional Esports in response to the Arab movement

International Recognition of Institutional vs. Private Duality

• Publishers retain control over their games, but must cooperate with federations in training careers.

Independent International Audit

• Oversight of federations and confederations to ensure transparency.

Esports Arbitration Court

• Inspired by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to resolve disputes.

Multilateral Memoranda of Cooperation

• Between publishers (Tencent, Riot, Valve ) and institutional entities (IESF, AESF, PAMESCO, ACES, EEF).

Academic Observatories

• Creation in universities for scientific production in Esports public policies.

Multilingual Communication

• Primers and reports in multiple languages to combat narratives of hegemonic capture.

 

 

Concrete proposals to resist the advance of parties seeking hegemonic control of Esports

On the international stage, Esports has established itself as a sociocultural and economic phenomenon of growing relevance. However, its hybrid nature—situated between the private logic of publishers , who hold the intellectual property of games, and the institutional logic of sport, which is based on regulation, governance, and the promotion of universal access—generates tensions between different actors.

The risk of hegemony of the ecosystem by private companies, international entities, or even political bodies that seek to unilaterally centralize regulation of the sector requires the construction of concrete proposals for resistance and balance , which guarantee the plurality of voices, international cooperation, and the preservation of institutional and private autonomy.

Esports is currently experiencing a period of struggle for legitimacy and institutional governance. The current fragmentation opens the door to attempts at hegemony by organizations that often seek a monopoly on power rather than the construction of a democratic and representative system. To resist these advances, it is necessary to strengthen truly multilateral institutions with a sporting vocation, as opposed to isolated or merely corporate initiatives.

The International Esports Federation (IESF) plays a central role in this process. Created in 2008, the IESF is today the largest global organization dedicated exclusively to Esports, bringing together more than 140 member countries (with due regard for the problem of " one- man-show" entities, but this is remediable, such as establishing affiliation and recognition criteria for entities proposing membership, such as the WESCO criteria, which can be used by the IESF, as is already the case with PAMESCO and ACES). Its legitimacy derives not only from its numerical representation but also from its adoption of principles close to the Olympic model and the traditional structure of the sport. By proposing regulations, statutes, and governance processes, the IESF has consolidated itself as a counterpoint to attempts at unilateral concentration of power.

However, the international solidity of Esports also depends on the strengthening of continental entities , which function as regional pillars of governance:

• PAMESCO ( Pan-American Esports Confederation) : responsible for bringing together the countries of the Americas around common policies, strengthening continental integration and preparing for major international competitions.
• AESF ( Asian Electronic Sports Federation) : with a strong institutional base in Asia, especially due to the presence of powers such as South Korea and China, it acts as a reference in the professionalization and legitimization of Esports in the region.
• ACES (African Confederation of Esports) : emerging as a strategic vector for the expansion of Esports on the African continent, representing not only competitive development, but also digital and educational inclusion.
• EEF ( European Esports Federation) : created to unify the efforts of European countries, it acts as an interlocutor with the institutions of the European Union and strengthens the articulation with the IESF itself.

Strengthening these continental entities is essential to ensure that Esports governance is not captured by unilateral projects or the commercial interests of publishers and private groups. Thus, the consolidation of a global network coordinated by the IESF, but institutionally supported by continental federations such as PAMESCO, AESF, ACES, and EEF , constitutes the most effective response to the risk of hegemony and ensures a pluralistic and legitimate system.

At the same time, it is important to highlight that entities such as the World Esports Consortium (WESCO) have historically played a significant role in debates on the regulation and dissemination of Esports, but the current axis of global representation has shifted to the IESF since WESCO granted this individual position to IESF in 2019, through a partnership. Other initiatives, such as the Global Esports Federation (GEF) , have not gained traction in academic and institutional debate because they present themselves more as commercial and promotional platforms than as effective sports governance structures—which is why they are not considered in this work.

Thus, resistance to the advancement of hegemonic proposals involves the active defense of a multipolar international governance model , with the IESF as the center and the continental confederations as regional foundations , ensuring that the development of Esports occurs in a balanced, democratic and representative manner.

Punctuating, but not delimiting:

1. Strengthening athletes' commissions and deliberative councils;
2. International integration between recognized federations (such as IESF);
3. Standardization of contracts and career protection;
4. Mandatory financial transparency;
5. Periodic audits of international events.

Among many other initiatives.

 

 

Final considerations

Saudi Arabia does not strengthen Esports , but tries to capture it as a political tool.

True sustainability requires institutional governance and participatory models. Isolated events, even with high visibility, are no substitute for careers, federations, or public policies . We learn from past mistakes ( one man show ) and today we know that strong institutions resist internal and external capture .

Saudi Arabia isn't "helping Esports." It's using them. This isn't help, it's capture. No careers are being created, there's no foundation, no public policies. There are only artificial events. Anyone who believes this "helps the ecosystem" is falling into a dangerous trap: confusing showcases with development, confusing power marketing with real sports.

True empowerment will not come from private tournaments created for political agendas, but from an institutionalized, transparent, and internationally recognized ecosystem capable of resisting both internal private interests and attempts at external capture.

It's important to be clear: not every investment in Esports events represents a real advance for the ecosystem. The sector's true strengthening comes when there is integration with athletes, federations, confederations, grassroots policies, and institutional recognition.

In the Saudi case, the focus has been on proprietary events, such as the World Esports Cup , created more to promote geopolitical interests and positioning within the International Olympic Committee than to structure careers and consolidate Esports as a legitimate sport.

While historic institutions like the IESF have been working for years to standardize and globally recognize Esports, parallel initiatives of this nature could end up weakening the collective effort, creating dependence on large, temporary contributions, and diverting focus from sustainable development.

Therefore, it is essential to differentiate initiatives that truly build a sporting legacy from those that simply use sport as a tool for image and influence.

 

 

 Comparison: Sustainable Development vs. Saudi Action

Element	Sustainable Sports Development	Model Saudi Arabia ( World Esports Cup )
Athletes	Legal recognition, career, labor rights, inclusion in public policies	They appear as a momentary attraction, without a career structure.
Institutions	Federations, confederations and integration with IOC/UN in a legitimate way	Attempt to create its own entity ( Foundation ) and weaken IESF/GEF
Governance	Transparency, representation, athlete participation (art. 18 and 18-A of the LGE)	Absolute centralization in a restricted group, without accountability
Legacy	Base structuring, clubs, schools, national public policies	Isolated events that disappear without continuity
Objective	Sport as an end (training, inclusion, development)	Sport as a means (geopolitical and image instrument)

 

 

 

 

Footnotes

 

1. Newzoo. Global Esports Market Report 2024 . Newzoo Insights, 2024.
2. Jenny, S. & Baker, T. Esports Governance and Career Development . Routledge , 2023.
3. Pérez, L. Sports Policy and Institutional Sustainability . Springer, 2022.
4. IESF Statutes , 2023; AESF Regulations , 2022.
5. Guttmann, A. From Ritual to Record: The Nature of Modern Sports . Columbia University Press, 2004.
6. IESF Executive Board Minutes, 2024.
7. IOC. Recognition of Non-Traditional Sports: Procedural Guidelines , 2023.
8. Federal Constitution of 1988, Art. 217.
9. Law No. 9,615/1998 (Pelé Law), Arts . 12–15; Law No. 14,369/2023 (LGE).
10. General Sports Law, Art. 2, §1.
11. LGE, Arts . 18–18A.
12. LGE, Art. 18-A, §2.
13. National Sports Council, Sports Governance Manual , 2022.
14. Xu, K. & Lee, J. International Esports Governance Models . Palgrave , 2023.

1. Jenny, S. & Baker, T. Athlete Governance in Digital Sports . Routledge, 2023.
2. IOC. Guidelines for Recognition of Emerging Sports , 2023.
3. CBDEL Statutes , 2024.
4. AESF Regulations , 2022.
5. WESCO Governance Framework, 2024.