Earlier in February, union sports minister Kiren Rijiju spoke in Parliament about the legitimacy of esports and its popularity with the youth. Rijiju also remarked that the government recognises the distinction between esports on one hand and gaming, i-gaming, and gambling on the other. Given the gush of recent conversations around the use of these terms, the minister’s comments stayed with us.
Online games are a $1.1 billion market in India. There are several, diverse categories based on the genre, device, and monetisation model adopted by gaming companies. But telling these categories apart is not an easy task – there are no settled definitions in legislation, policy, or case law. Any lawyer worth her salt will tell you that clear and precise definitions are important, and their absence, risky. Definitions anchor regulatory frameworks, and in some cases, embody the law itself. For example, the definition of a contract under Indian law spells out the essentials it must contain – i.e., the rules of what makes a valid contract.
In this piece, we focus on one part of India’s online gaming ecosystem – esports. Today, what esports means is guided largely by public opinion: news reports, articles, personal views, and perhaps even corporate marketing. Some treat esports as a members-only club for very specific genres, or even specific games. Others want a wider, more inclusive definition where users digitally compete on skill. What we need is a clear definition for esports. One that is definitive, prescribed by an authority, and not susceptible to public opinion.
But what is the compelling need to define esports? First, the industry is too big to ignore. It is a $2.17 billion global market and investors, users, and other stakeholders need to know how India defines and regulates esports before entering the market. Second, esports is an international medal winning opportunity for India. Last year, in a historic first, esports was approved as an official medal event for the 2022 Asian Games. Esports may also feature at the 2024 Paris Olympics. India should be keen to jump on this opportunity. But that is difficult without a national sports federation (NSF). What is an NSF? It is the governing body for a sport that is tasked to select and send India’s participation to global events. Rijiju also acknowledged in his speech that India does not have an NSF for esports yet. And the reason is obvious. Without first defining what esports is, it will be premature to designate one – for what would its scope be? With only a year to the 2022 Asian Games, an NSF (and a definition) for esports is urgent. Any delay hinders India’s performance at global events.
So, how should esports be defined? There are several approaches to consider. One is to see esports as part of the sports taxonomy, needing similar physical and mental skills, but on an electronic platform. But then, what is a sport? According to the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, a sport is anything that has an NSF for it. India has a total of 54 NSFs today. Alongside cricket, football, hockey; ‘Atya Patya’, ‘Kho Kho’ and ‘Mallakhamb’ also have an NSF and are consequently, sports. While some sports need a multiple and diverse skill-set, others may only require a few basic ones. For instance, to excel in ‘Kho Kho’, one needs to have better speed and balance than other players. So, to define esports, we could consider identifying online games that present similar skills as a sport and call them esports. This is one way to go about it.
Another, perhaps broader approach, is to identify typical features of a sport in a digital game. Pick any sport in India and you will probably find these common elements: competitiveness, rules, objective to win, reliance on physical/mental skill, and pre-match training. The presence of these features in an online game can help in defining esports. But one may argue that elements like viewership, duration of gameplay, fanbase and prize-money are as important to call something a sport. But are they really? Maybe not. If they were, test cricket, cricket’s least viewed version, would be less of a sport (or not at all) than T20 cricket. Kabaddi would become one only in 2014 when Pro Kabaddi took off. For many in India, rugby and baseball should still not be called sports. We don’t mean to sound flippant – but while considering a definition for esports, we should recognize that some elements are critical, some important, while others may be irrelevant.
There may be other approaches to consider and several other questions to answer. As India strives to become a leading gaming industry and (hopefully) a contender for esports medals globally, it needs a well-defined framework for esports. Rijiju’s speech has brought the issue to the fold, and we hope it opens the door for a governing framework for esports in India, starting with, of course, a clear definition.
Sarthak Doshi is an associate, and Nehaa Chaudhari is a partner at Ikigai Law. The views expressed are personal.
Be the first to comment