Abstract
The conclusion of this paper will be that e-sports are not sports. I begin by offering a stipulation and a definition.
I stipulate that what I have in mind, when thinking about the concept of sport, is 'Olympic' sport. And I define an Olympic Sport as an institutionalised, rule-governed contest of human physical skill.
The justification for the stipulation lies partly in that it is uncontroversial. Whatever else people might think of as sport, no-one denies that Olympic Sport is sport.
This seeks to ensure that those who might wish to dispute my conclusion might stay with the argument at least for as long as possible. Secondly, the justification for the stipulation lies partly in its normativityI have chosen an Olympic conception of sport just because it seems to me to offer some kind of desirable version of what sport is and might become.
Thirdly, I give examples which show how prominent promoters of e-sports agree with my stipulation, as evidenced by their strenuous attempts to comply with it in order to join the Olympic club. The justification for the definition lies in the conceptual analysis offeredan 'exhibition-analysis' which clarifies the concept of sport by offering 'construals' of the six first-level terms.
The conclusion is that e-sports are not sports because they are inadequately 'human'; they lack direct physicality; they fail to employ decisive whole-body control and whole-body skills, and cannot contribute to the development of the whole human; and because their patterns of creation, production, ownership and promotion place serious constraints on the emergence of the kind of stable and persisting institutions characteristic of sports governance. Competitive computer games do not qualify as sports, no matter what resemblances' may be claimed.
Computer games are just thatgames.