Using panopticism to theorize the social role of the body in competitive gaming and electronic sport

Abstract

The role of the body is a common topic for discussions concerning competitive gaming, also known as electronic sport (esport). In esport, the focus on the body shifts from its physical presence towards digitality and therefore differs significantly compared to traditional sports. It is therefore questionable whether disciplinary mechanisms typical for sport that originate from the physical body being surveyed can be observed in competitive gaming as well. This conceptual paper uses Michel Foucault's concept of panopticism to theorize what consequences of deviant or normative behaviour can be derived from a (partially) absent physical corporeality in esport. Our approach reveals that esport and competitive gaming are lacking disciplinary mechanisms typical for traditional sports. We introduce the term dysopticon as a concept where players are not exposed to surveillance like in traditional sports, because of a perceived absence of the players’ physical bodies while competing. This can result in arbitrariness and deviant behaviour but also be an opportunity for inclusion or self-expression regardless of hegemonic corporeal norms and standards. Stakeholders, including players, clubs, associations, and corporations, can build upon these insights to develop and promote esport beneficially for sport and society.

Keywords

electronic sport corporeality body Foucault panopticism

Introduction

Corporeality is a central topic in many discussions about electronic sport (esport), so competitive video and computer gaming. The term esport includes all forms of competitive computer and video gaming where at least two parties try to outperform each other based on strategic, tactical, mental, and physical, mainly fine motor prowess (Hemphill, 2005; Jenny et al., 2017; Riatti and Thiel, 2021). The role of corporeality is often referred to in the so-called ‘can-esport-be-sport’ debate considering a presumable lack of physicality while playing esport, compared to traditional sports (Borggrefe, 2018; Ekdahl, 2021a; Parry, 2019; Riatti and Thiel, 2021; Thiel and John, 2020). Currently, the research in this area mainly focuses on physical traits, like the ones in traditional sports, including fine motoric requirements, affective responses, clinical pictures, or impact on physical health in general (Lam et al., 2020; Schary et al., 2022; Vaamonde et al., 2018). The body's social role as a communicative point of reference – a key feature of the body (Thiel et al., 2013) – remains largely unexplored. A peculiarity about the body in esport is that corporeality goes beyond what is happening in front of the screen. On top of a player's physical appearance and the physical fine motoric skills (like hand–eye coordination), two additional corporeal aspects can be observed: being interwoven with the digital avatar and the appearance of the avatar in the game (Ekdahl, 2021b; Ekdahl and Ravn, 2021; Ford, 2017; Riatti and Thiel, 2023). Compared to traditional sports where the athlete's body is the central aspect of each sport (Loy, 1991; Thiel et al., 2013), in esport, we see a shift from the physical towards the digital body (Ekdahl, 2022; Holt, 2016; Riatti and Thiel, 2023; Thiel and John, 2020). Particularly in non-professional competitive gaming or, for example, exclusively online competitions, players remain largely unidentifiable. This leads to anonymity while competing – atypical for traditional sports – because the players are not physically interacting with each other and the physical body as a means of social interaction has no use. Scholars see in anonymity the origin of increased deviant and arbitrary behaviour in competitive gaming (Hayday et al., 2021; Irwin and Naweed, 2020; Kwak et al., 2015; Lapidot-Lefler and Barak, 2012).

The connection between deviant or normative behaviour and the role of the body is specially treated in the works of French sociologist Michel Foucault (Foucault, 1977; Kammler et al., 2014). Particularly, his concept of panopticism, describing how surveillance and disciplinary mechanisms form docile and disciplined bodies, is a proven approach to analysing interaction and behaviour in modern sports (Alkemeyer and Pille, 2006; Cole, 1993; Cole et al., 2004; Pringle, 2014; Rail and Harvey, 1995; Reinhart, 2014; Wolf, 2014).

Panopticism is typical for modern sports since the physical body is always under surveillance. Foucauldian scholars argue that athletes being observed by referees, spectators, teammates, opponents, or coaches are disciplined according to certain norms (game rules, moral codes, and sports etiquette). Eventually, this turns them into ‘docile bodies’ (Duncan, 1994; Lang, 2010; Lenneis et al., 2021; Rail and Harvey, 1995). However, the role of corporeality in esport appears to be different from traditional sports. Even though top performance in esport requires fine motoric prowess and hand–eye coordination on a high level, the ‘steering’ physicality of the performance is invisible, whereas only the mediated performance through the digital body is relevant to the observers (Riatti and Thiel, 2023). The physical body is not the focus of the sportive performance, but the digital avatar is (Borggrefe, 2021; Holt, 2016; Thiel and John, 2020). Most likely, disciplinary mechanisms cannot be observed in competitive gaming, which may eventually be a reason for arbitrary or deviant behaviour (Kwak et al., 2015; Lapidot-Lefler and Barak, 2012). This conceptual paper closes in on this topic by drawing on the idea of panopticism to theoretically investigate how far the social role of the physical body (regarding disciplinary mechanisms) differs when compared to traditional sports and elaborates on the implications which can be derived for players and other actors in esport, based on this particular role of corporeality.

In the following sections of this paper, we first explain the concept of panopticism and why it is an appropriate theoretical background for our analysis. Secondly, we draw on this theory to elaborate on the disciplinary mechanisms in esport and introduce the term dysopticon to illustrate the role of the (partially) absent physical body in competitive gaming. On this basis, we finally discuss the practical and theoretical implications which can be derived from our analysis.

Elaborating on panopticism and its alterations

Panopticism is a term introduced by Michel Foucault in his work Discipline and Punish (Foucault, 1977). He analyses the social mechanisms behind the changes in the criminal justice system of Western societies. Some scholars argue that this book has an exceptional position in its oeuvre, being particularly influential for politics and (sport) sociology (Reinhart, 2014; Wolf, 2014). The term panopticism refers to the panopticon, an architectural idea by Jeremy Bentham from the late 18th century (Bentham, 1791; Foucault, 1977). His concept is designed particularly for prisons but can be transferred to other institutions where people are kept under supervision, like penitentiary houses, schools, or hospitals. The architectural alignment of Bentham's idea allows that a single ward can watch over all inmates at once from a central point, without the inmates knowing they are being observed. It explains how mechanisms of surveillance or discipline, namely hierarchical observation, normalizing judgment, and examination, create docile bodies. A ‘normalizing gaze’ leads the inmates to a perpetual feeling of being surveilled and – alongside any form of deviance resulting in punishment – induces normative behaviour (Foucault, 1977).

Panopticism does not only concern the penitentiary system but also schools, hospitals, sanatoriums, and sports grounds. Still, Foucault used the prison analogy to showcase how surveillance induces disciplinary power in an idealized way (Cole et al., 2004; Foucault, 1977). The normalizing, normative, or panoptic gaze does not have to be visible to create docile bodies. The idea of a surveilling authority is sufficient because the effect of surveillance is permanent, although it is implemented only on occasion (Foucault, 1977; Markula-Denison and Pringle, 2007). Even when the authority is physically absent, people will act according to the norm, as they internalize the normative behaviour, resulting in self-surveillance (Andrews, 1993; Foucault, 1977; Markula-Denison and Pringle, 2007; Rail and Harvey, 1995; Rinehart, 1998). Foucault was critical of the panopticon, stating that the panoptical power not only is to be regarded as a repressive, insidious force but may also be productive by inducing benevolent behaviour and creating new perceptions of reality (Foucault, 1977; Rail and Harvey, 1995).

While some critiques of panopticism in the digital age argue that the concept is outdated and no longer applicable, other scholars suggest that panopticism is still a relevant and valuable theory for understanding contemporary surveillance practices (Galič et al., 2017; Haggerty, 2006; Haggerty and Ericson, 2000; Lyon, 2006). Haggerty and Ericson (2000) introduce the concept of the surveillant assemblage, which emphasizes the multiplicity and diversity of contemporary surveillance technologies and practices but does not reject the panopticon model entirely. Galič et al. (2017) argue that panopticism is one of several useful surveillance theories and that it remains relevant today because it helps us to understand how surveillance practices are justified and legitimized. While some scholars critique panopticism for its focus on the physical architecture of surveillance, others argue that the theory can be adapted to analyse the digital realm. For instance, Lyon (1993) proposes the concept of the ‘electronic panopticon’, which applies the principles of panopticism to digital surveillance practices and emphasizes the importance of including social, cultural, and economic contexts when applying the theory. Overall, while there are certainly valid critiques of panopticism in the digital age, the theory continues to be a valuable foundation for understanding contemporary surveillance practices. Scholars can continue to use the panopticon model to critically analyse the complex and evolving landscape of surveillance (Boyne, 2000; Lyon, 2006). Especially considering the adaptation in digital realms and the shift from the idea of a physical architecture toward a virtual one opens new possibilities to use the concept of panopticism in an increasingly digitalized world.

Some articles connect panopticism and gaming (Kerr et al., 2014; van Nuenen, 2015), and a few specifically link it to competitive gaming or esport. Krassen and Aupers (2022) show that players can feel subordinated to disciplinary mechanisms of panopticism, like requiring to train individually or in teams, but they have always the option to opt out. Tomkinson and van den Ende (2022) describe an in-game function that allows players to judge deviant behaviour of other players as a panoptic mechanism. The idea behind these mechanisms is that players sense the gaze of an endorsement and punishment system and act accordingly. Their study shows that the said mechanisms are effective with players and it appears that deviant and toxic behaviour can be reduced with such a system. However, none of the mentioned papers uses the physical body as an immediate starting point for the investigation, compared to the present study. Considering that esports and competitive gaming can be understood as new forms of sports, it is important to include corporeality when examining social phenomena in esport and competitive gaming (Riatti and Thiel, 2023).

In modern sports, panoptical mechanisms are omnipresent. Scholars use the term sporting panopticon for various expressions of disciplinary mechanisms. For example, the depiction of women's bodies in fitness magazines is regarded as a panoptic phenomenon that triggers self-surveillance due to the pursuit of idealistic body aesthetics (Duncan, 1994; Markula, 1995). Coaches monitor athletes on and off the sports grounds in such a way that athletes sense the coach's normalizing gaze and survey themselves. In their personal lives, they follow the induced normative ideals to achieve performative and competitive goals. These can be special diets, abstinence, or additional exercise (Cole et al., 2004; Heikkala, 1993; Lang, 2010; Lenneis et al., 2021). The architectural alignment of sports stadia with security systems during sports events can also be labelled as panoptical. Security checks and video surveillance, as well as broadcasting systems, tribune design, or seating regulations, create an environment where subjects are exposed to a normalizing gaze. Anyone attending must subordinate to it at sports events (Bale, 1994; Sugden, 2012; Turner and Lee Ludvigsen, 2022). However, while Foucault describes the panopticon as a means where the few survey the many, in a stadium or during a broadcast, a conversely normalizing gaze originates from the spectators observing the few players. This can be described as an inverse panopticon or a synopticon (Galič et al., 2017; Mathiesen, 1997; Tjostheim and Waterworth, 2020). If we extend this idea to competitive gaming, the first thing to say is that there is factually no one surveying the player's physical body. The contender's corporeality and action are mediated by digital avatars. Therefore, it could be described as the opposite of a pan- or synopticon. We propose the term ‘dysopticon’, composed of the Greek word dys, which means missing, and opticon, referring to visibility. In the following sections, we elaborate on the disciplinary mechanisms of hierarchical observation, normalizing judgment, and examination and how these occur in a competitive gaming setting. We also put forth some reflections on the dysopticon and its accuracy in the context of competitive gaming.

Investigating the disciplinary mechanisms in esport

The role of physicality in esport is – like the foregoing arguments show – much disputed. From a Foucauldian perspective, physicality can be expressed in esport in three ways: as a hierarchical observation, as normalizing judgment, and in the form of an examination (Cole et al., 2004; Foucault, 1977). (1) Hierarchical observation describes the spatial organization and architectural features necessary to create a panopticon. The specific spatial arrangement allows an efficient, constant observation of entities. For esport, this could refer to the setup of the computer where a player competes. (2) Normalizing judgment implies the existence of an authority observing behaviour and punishing or rewarding it, depending on the defiance or docility shown. In this context, sanctioning should always be corrective towards normativity. In esport, computer game developers may impose norms in the form of rules or mechanics within the game physics on the players. (3) Examination combines observing hierarchy and normalizing judgment, thus allowing to qualify, classify, or punish via a normalizing gaze (Foucault, 1977). This occurs, for example, in tournaments where referees are monitoring the players physically and virtually, according to the previously defined rules of the competition and the game.

Hierarchical observation in esport and competitive gaming

A crucial distinction between traditional sports and esport regarding the means of observation is spatial organization. Sports grounds, like facilities, pitches, and gyms, are physical and accessible, and therefore, the athlete is observable. Although they are rather distinctive in size, shape, etc., nearly all sports grounds share attributes of a panopticon (Fiske and Hancock, 2016). The gaze of all participants in this system – passers-by, spectators, other athletes, coaches, etc. – is part of the hierarchical observation (Foucault, 1977; Turner and Lee Ludvigsen, 2022).

However, competitive gaming or esport is not bound to a certain location but depends on the device played on. The computer or console used for competitive gaming is commonly located in the players’ home, a private, not openly accessible location, hidden from external observation. The gameplay takes place in a digital environment, with the actions being mediated by a digital avatar. The player is isolated from physical interaction with others and invisible to a hierarchical observation unless his or her in-game actions can be linked to the physical body. This usually only happens at a certain level of performance, when players start competing against each other on offline events, for example in sports stadia, arenas, or similar venues. Therefore, it can be argued that, especially in the case of the basic levels of competition, gaming happens in a dysoptic environment.

Except for the publishers of the games, there are practically no hierarchical institutions controlling this player group, which forms the majority of the player base (Hayday et al., 2021). The physical bodies don’t show up, so hierarchical observation cannot be enforced. As a result of the ‘unidentifiability’, online spaces can potentially trigger deviant and toxic behaviour (Lapidot-Lefler and Barak, 2012). Therefore, an extended practice in games is ‘smurfing’, which refers to a high-skilled player using the account of a low-skilled player to play against other low-skilled players – a common problem in amateur competitions (Hippe et al., 2017). Other examples are players’ toxic behaviour against teammates or opponents or reduced willingness to collaborate, which can be critical for team-based esport titles (Cress and Kimmerle, 2008; Lapidot-Lefler and Barak, 2012). Eventually, because of computer mediation, the observation of the physical body is not possible. This means that the representative function of the body and its role as a means of identification can’t be carried out.

Normalizing judgment in esport and competitive gaming

Compared to traditional sports, in esport, we see few institutions in charge of setting up norms, ethics, or moral values or being able to monitor and sanction deviant behaviour (Czegledy, 2021). Some rules of the game are predetermined by the way game developers and publishers design in-game physics and mechanics (Hayday et al., 2021). However, these mechanisms are rather the constitutional rules of the game and have no impact on behavioural rules and ethics. While the game mechanics define what is possible in the game and what is not, rules for behaviour or social interaction cannot be implemented within them. Because of the lacking normalizing judgment, the role of corporeality as a representative of values (and therefore normative behaviour) diminishes. Although there is a basic perception of what can be considered etiquette in gaming or adequate social behaviour, the breaking of these rules is difficult to monitor (Taylor, 2009).

Immediately sanctioning misdemeanours is almost impossible, due to the lack of physical enforcers. In traditional sports, participants have a certain control function towards each other, based on hegemonic normative values. For example, a player may act according to the rules of the game (enforced through the referee), stick to a strategy (made by the coach), exercise to become healthy (as advised by a physician), or pursue normative aesthetics (according to beauty standards) (Thiel et al., 2013). So, in traditional sports, deviance becomes visible and interventions are applied: The player who commits a rough foul is expelled, and the patient who skips rehab is exposed by his physician or is not recovering. In esport overarching institutions, defining these values is not like traditional sports. Players compete in the games according to the rules and environment created by profit-orientated developers or publishers, with limited means of monitoring deviant behaviour or sanctioning it (Czegledy, 2021). Therefore, social interaction or behaviour in games is arbitrary and can easily shift towards deviant behaviour (Hayday et al., 2021; Kwak et al., 2015; Lapidot-Lefler and Barak, 2012), as it cannot be sanctioned adequately to prevent it from happening. For example, temporary or permanent exclusion from a game can be bypassed by acquiring a new anonymous account. Physical punishment is not possible due to the digital environment in which the competition takes place. Lastly and since competitive gaming is no substitution for physical exertion, we must remind that aesthetics or health is not promoted (Haupt et al., 2021; Schmidt et al., 2018). Authorities that would usually monitor these attributes in traditional sports, including self-surveillance or beauty standards (i.e. practitioners or physicians) may not exist in the immediate physical actual environment.

The body's relevance for reproducing norms only emerges when players become part of organized structures like the ones in traditional sports. Here, gamers must accept the norms of an entity beyond the digital realm of the game itself, and also social environments like clubs, teams, leagues, or loosely organized casual competitions (Thiel et al., 2013). In these environments, the players understand that for example their club can sanction them if they miss practice, behave unsportsmanlike, damage the reputation of the club, etc. However, in competitive gaming, the majority of the player bases are not competing in any organized environment and are therefore not exposed to external judgment. The sanctioning of the normalizing judgment is feeble and might therefore not be perceived as threatening. For example, if a player gets ejected immediately from a game due to misbehaviour, he or she can simply join another match. A (temporary) ban on the gaming account might take weeks to be implemented and may easily be evaded by creating a new (anonymous) account (Tomkinson and van den Ende, 2022). If normative behaviour cannot be induced through the physical body, like in traditional sports, this particular role could be fulfilled through different means, such as linking one's identity to the gaming account. This would strengthen the sanctioning and could support the normalizing judgment. The implementation, however, would be challenging to achieve considering the necessity of monitoring vast numbers of players at the same time (Kwak et al., 2015). Further, players can figure out how to avoid or abuse existing monitoring systems to their advantage. Therefore, any monitoring and sanctioning by the publishers require good care to adjust to the players’ behaviour (Foucault, 1977; Tomkinson and van den Ende, 2022).

Examination in esport and competitive gaming

If neither normalizing judgment nor hierarchical observation may be carried out like in traditional sports, the element of examination in esport barely exists (Foucault, 1977). Typically, the physical body is not the centre of attention and is usually not present. So, its role as a point of reference for communication, and interaction, and as a behaviour-inducer, diminishes. Sanctioning is seldom as immediate as in traditional sports because of the missing authorities, and if punishment is executed, it is not productively corrective, as described by Foucault, but excluding, by being kicked or banned from a game (Irwin and Naweed, 2020; Kwak et al., 2015). The anonymity in gaming, therefore, stands in contradiction to the disciplinary mechanisms (Lapidot-Lefler and Barak, 2012). Further, an overwhelming amount of toxic behaviour is fuelled by the idea that there is no serious control or sanctioning and preventive mechanisms and that these are not implemented, not working, or not being seriously taken (Irwin and Naweed, 2020; Kwak et al., 2015; Tomkinson and van den Ende, 2022). This, of course, depends on the type of game and the involvement of the publisher (or any similar authority). Further, the role of examination is limited considering that competitive gaming is no substitute for physical exercise (Haupt et al., 2021; Schmidt et al., 2018). The body's role as a mirror of normative aesthetic values (Markula, 1995; Thiel et al., 2013) cannot be executed through esport, which diminishes the relevance of self-surveillance while playing competitively even more.

So, despite being in communication and interacting with players or teammates, disciplinary mechanisms have no effect and extrinsic motivation for normative behaviour might be missing (Tomkinson and van den Ende, 2022). Theoretically, social interaction with teammates or opponents can be corrective for the players in sports and the same works for face-to-face competitive gaming (Jansz and Martens, 2005; Taylor et al., 2017). The anonymity of the internet, however, has a subversive effect on this (Jansz and Martens, 2005; Kwak et al., 2015; Lapidot-Lefler and Barak, 2012). Further, the high turnover of players in competitive gaming may amplify this. In traditional sports, competitors are in direct contact with each other and are recognizable even beyond the competition. Presumably, this amplifies the importance of sports etiquette because the social interaction or the conflicts do not necessarily finish when the competition comes to an end: In football, a retaliatory action because of a conflict during the game may also be executed after the final whistle. In online gaming, the players are randomly assigned based on their skill level to compete. The interaction only occurs during the match and because of the high number of players, it is unlikely to meet the same players again and the anonymity of the internet complicates the possibility of identifying each other (Lapidot-Lefler and Barak, 2012). Just like for the hierarchical observation and the normalizing judgment, the examination is non-existent for most competitive gaming. Players who are competing in casual or loosely organized competitions can remain unidentifiable. The body as an object to induce normative behaviour does not appear, and disciplinary mechanisms therefore cannot work as explained by Foucault (1977).

Although there are many similarities between traditional and esport in what concerns competitiveness, physical and mental prowess, or degree of professionalization (Riatti and Thiel, 2021), the panoptic mechanisms show a distinction when the players are physically absent while competing. Unlike in traditional sports, the normalizing gaze is only relevant for organized (and therefore most likely for professional levels), representing a minor proportion compared to the overall number of players (Julkunen et al., 2021). Regarding panopticism, one could argue that we can observe a dysopticon for casual competitive gaming. On this basis, it is possible to introduce a new perspective considering competitive gaming as referring to the different interplay between the panoptical mechanisms as depicted further above.

Conceptualizing the gaming dysopticon

Hierarchical observation, normalizing judgment, and examination are, at the very most, partially observable. Potential positive effects of the panopticon evoked through the presence of the physical body in the form of a productive and constructive force inducing normative behaviour, action, or change might not function (Deleuze, 1992; Foucault, 1980; Rail and Harvey, 1995; Tjostheim and Waterworth, 2020).

Contrary to traditional sports, normative behaviour like sportsmanship or netiquette is difficult to mediate when the physical body is not on display competing (Irwin and Naweed, 2020; Lapidot-Lefler and Barak, 2012; Tomkinson and van den Ende, 2022). Behaviour or interaction between teammates and competitors can become arbitrary. Nobody except the player herself or himself is watching, evaluating, controlling, or sanctioning behaviour with limited feedback or consequences for misdemeanours. Disciplinary power can barely be induced in the players, and docility is less likely to be achieved since neither gaze nor physical body is present in competitive matches. The downside of this missing normalizing gaze can be seen in frequent toxic behaviour or other misdemeanours, during competitive matches, because of the anonymity of the players (Hayday et al., 2021; Irwin and Naweed, 2020; Kwak et al., 2015; Lapidot-Lefler and Barak, 2012). Further, it reduces or removes the role of aesthetics, health, or fitness – common indicators for panoptic mechanisms (Cole et al., 2004). This can also be seen in the fact that competitive gaming or esport is no substitute for physical training (Haupt et al., 2021; Schmidt et al., 2018). So, esport is not favourable for physical activity and its desirable beneficial traits, unlike what is usually denoted by traditional sports (Heinemann, 2007; Thiel et al., 2013).

The player's physical movement, despite being elemental for playing, is not the centre of attention. Instead, the depiction of the movement by the digital avatars in the game becomes the centre of attention (Ekdahl and Ravn, 2019, 2021; Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). This implies a disruption between corporeality and the sport and diminishes the physical body's significance according to a common sportive attribution of the physical body. Thus, it is not unlikely to see professional gamers competing on the highest levels, with body compositions diverging from the hegemonic social image of an athletic body (DiFrancisco-Donoghue et al., 2020; Jenny et al., 2017; Riatti and Thiel, 2021). However, the differing focus on the body and the departure from an ideal athletic body are not signs against sport. Sport-specific movements are performed regardless of onlookers, and each sport has its own conditional or coordinative requirements (Thiel et al., 2013). This makes a comparison between highly athletic sports and sports with minimalistic movement requirements problematic. Further, a lacking normalizing gaze implies high participatory potential. Theoretically, dispositions like aesthetics, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disabilities are not burdens for the interaction in competitive gaming as the player may be protected from discrimination or exclusion. Therefore, the dysopticon may be regarded as an inclusive and barrier-free sportive environment (Hayday et al., 2021; Hayday and Collison, 2020).

However, it must be mentioned that these dispositions are often the target of insult, discrimination, or other toxic behaviour in competitive gaming, provided that aggressors have access to this information (Hayday et al., 2021; Hussain et al., 2021). Thus, a dysopticon represents, on the one hand, a space of open expression free from stigmas, but on the other hand, a ‘lawless space’ that allows for deviant behaviour. Assuming the idea of online embodiment (Sundén, 2003), which states that a user always feels connected to and can represent their physical body online, this means that the user can still be defamed despite the supposed absence of the physical body. This can be seen, among other things, in toxic behaviours based on genetic dispositions. Therefore, there is a certain duality between the free expression of personality independent of genetic, physiological, or other physical characteristics that may be perceived to place the user in certain social classes, environments, or demographics (Hussain et al., 2021), and the practical experience that shows that users, once they make themselves recognizable, still use genetic and physical dispositions to insult or otherwise attack the person they are interacting with (Kwak et al., 2015). It is therefore important to consider the extent of the information that a player reveals about themselves in order to avoid remaining in a dysopticon while interacting with others. However, this is not to be understood as a communication barrier, as it only refers to the information a player gives about their status, identity, or physicality.

On a structural level, the dysoptical state is comparable to informal sports like skateboarding or surfing, which can be considered counterparts to the existing hierarchical sports structures (Reinhart, 2014; Reinhart and Krüger, 2007). Competitive gaming can therefore be used as a practice for personal self-expression without having to match hierarchical or normative standards (Hao et al., 2020; Hussain et al., 2021). It can be stated that the physicality, movement practice, and body functional techniques in esport or competitive gaming are in line with theories about the differentiation of sport (Heinemann, 2007; Thiel et al., 2013). Therefore, one can argue that esport is a contemporary approach towards and a logical development of modern sport concerning the trend of increasing disembodiment in society (Riatti and Thiel, 2021; Thiel and John, 2020).

Based on the theoretical approach of research on the social roles of the body regarding disciplinary mechanisms, one can argue that current competitive gaming and esport are diverging from what can be considered a sporting panopticon. Many established values, norms, or structures from traditional sport, ranging from fair play or sportsmanship to an athletic body, up to associations of public utility, might be underrepresented, non-existent, or difficult to establish and promote, especially at a grass-roots level. On the other hand, the gaming dysopticon is theoretically a barrier-free and therefore an inclusive space in the field of sport. Players can compete with and against each other regardless of genetic or personal dispositions. Anyone who might not fit into existing sport structures can find self-expression in competitive gaming and esport (Hao et al., 2020; Hussain et al., 2021; Trepte et al., 2012). With this background, the question arises about how the characteristics of the gaming dysopticon can be perceived by stakeholders from the esport environment, like players, teams, publishers, or politics.

Theoretical and practical implications

The description of the gaming dysopticon reveals that the interweaving of physical and digital worlds in competitive gaming is uncommon for traditional sports. There is a shift of attention from the physical towards the virtual body. This can also be observed in society and might change the perception of corporeality in general (Goebeler et al., 2021; Riatti and Thiel, 2021; Thiel and Gropper, 2017). However, the physical body is still elemental and indispensable for competitive gaming (Ekdahl and Ravn, 2019; Riatti and Thiel, 2023). Considering this and the fact that players are the core key actors of the esport and competitive gaming ecosystem (Julkunen et al., 2021), various implications for the many stakeholders of this system can be derived.

First, as described in the preceding sections, hierarchical observation, normalizing judgment, and examination are less likely to function compared to traditional sports. Thus, the proclaimed productivity of panopticism might not exist (Foucault, 1977; Wolf, 2014). Although publishers and developers have similar functions like organizational structures from traditional sports, the mediation of the said values is not within their scope (Breuer, 2012; Julkunen et al., 2021). Therefore, introducing central governing bodies for esport could help implement and enforce overarching rules and codes of conduct for all organized leagues and tournaments from amateur to professional level (Abanazir, 2019; Abanazir, 2022). This could include guidelines on how to tackle problems such as cheating, doping, and match-fixing but also endorse values such as sportsmanship or (n)etiquette. Publishers can outsource these responsibilities to associations, which would be accountable for tournaments, leagues, and esport activities within their region (Czegledy, 2021). This is already being done by esport organizers, for example in working together with the (inter)national anti-doping agencies (WADA/NADA), the Esports Integrity Commission (ESIC), and national non-profit esport associations (Abanazir, 2019; Ghoshal, 2019; Taylor, 2012; Tweedie et al., 2022). Misconduct, like toxic behaviour, cheating, or rule violations in competitions could be monitored, and the sanctions would be valid for all associations under the overarching governing institution. Still, taking the sport system as an example, this would require the help of volunteers managing these structures and the willingness of the for-profit organizations to collaborate and support this beneficial role (Thiel et al., 2013). A step in this direction could be acknowledging the common benefit of esport in a similar vein to traditional sports and therefore adopting it within the existing sports structures. For example, the past two German governmental coalition agreements mention this as a goal (CDU et al., 2017; SPD et al., 2021). This would open the possibilities for clubs to acquire subsidies to set up an esport division and associations to organize competitions. Some (non-profit) entities have already devoted resources towards this purpose but it requires help from politics and IP-holders to establish a similar standing to traditional sports associations (Willimczik, 2019).

Second, it is possible to create governmental regulations which can be connected to political interventions in the gaming branch. It is crucial that these interventions are incentive and benevolent for the stakeholders and not repressive or invasive. For example, the governmental interventions in China, ranging from forcing players to identify themselves via face recognition to banning interaction with foreign communities and players, as well as limiting play time (Tapsell, 2019; Xiao, 2021), counter the traits of the gaming dysopticon but also jeopardize fundamental traits of sport like self-expression or intercultural exchange (Thiel et al., 2013). Despite interventions from governmental bodies, the integrity of the sport, in this case, esport, must not be subverted. Possible options could be encouraging publishers and developers to implement educational systems within their games that allow a conscientious interaction with gaming and esport (Czegledy, 2021).

Third, publishers can normalize the players by implementing a system in which players need to verify their identity to play and are only allowed to own one account. This would also call for a neutral referee to evaluate the players’ behaviour in matches. However, based on the vast player numbers of certain games, it is a logistical and economic challenge for a single entity. Outsourcing these tasks to other entities like clubs or associations could help cope with this problem. Still, publishers profit monetarily from people with multiple accounts, as players might need to repurchase the game when their accounts become void. Corporate ownership implies limited access to the games, and the potential downfall increases drastically through misdemeanours. Several examples show how professional gamers or streamers have been banned from games or leading streaming platforms because of cheating, match-fixing, or toxic behaviour (Taylor, 2012). Since streaming services and especially games can be regarded as monopolistic (Abanazir, 2019), exclusion from these can be career-threatening for professional gamers and streamers.

Fourth, when playing in an organized club, defiance can be sanctioned with exclusion from the club or a league and can result in a loss of reputation (Thiel et al., 2013). Authorities attempting the construction of a normative or panoptical gaze can be teammates, opponents, coaches, managers, a league, or associations. Players who used to be anonymous and compete under a nickname now appear as personas and become visible. In such an environment, topics like etiquette, sportsmanship, media literacy, and many social conventions could be conveyed (Riatti and Thiel, 2021). So, organized clubs and associations might be essential not only to prevent and monitor but also in taking on a role as an educational player teaching adequate behaviour for esport (Robertson et al., 2019).

Fifth, if players are willing to go pro, sooner or later, they will have to identify themselves to compete in higher-level tournaments or leagues and at offline events. Still, during the pandemic, many tournaments were entirely held with players only having a webcam installed, so they were also visible to the spectators. This can also be seen on streaming platforms: there, players become visible to a normalizing gaze of their audience, and indirectly also from the platform they are streaming on and from the games they are playing. Certain misdemeanours eventually lead to exclusion from each of the platforms or systems, depending on the gravity of the misconduct. Spectators might stop tuning in, the platform can withdraw access to streaming, or players may be banned from the game. However, in this case, we must mention that opening oneself to a normalizing gaze via streaming is optional and voluntary, a trait similar to what Johns and Johns (2000) see in traditional sports.

Sixth, when visiting offline events for casual competitive gamers like LAN-Parties, the negative aspects of the dysopticon become obsolete. Suddenly, misdemeanours may be prevented or penalized on the spot, just like in the above-mentioned example on the football pitch, via exclusion or loss of reputation. So, it is to expect that the amount of deviant behaviour is significantly lower at offline events than online, not least because the direct human interaction has a gratifying effect on the players (Jansz and Martens, 2005). This thought can also be picked up by sports clubs when establishing esport teams within their structures, or by governing bodies when wanting to promote esport: By creating a physical space for competitive gamers to meet and compete with and against each other, the potential beneficial traits of esport, like self-expression, socializing, or developing skills, can be promoted while preventing deviant traits like cyberbullying or toxic behaviour (Riatti and Thiel, 2021; Robertson et al., 2019).

Eventually, it needs to be stressed that Foucault was critical of the way a panopticon works. Despite saying that the enforced power through surveillance must not always be regarded as repressive but also as productive, he labelled the disciplinary mechanisms as insidious and cruel because it puts the surveyed within a system under general suspicion (Foucault, 1977). The power asymmetry between the surveyor and the surveyed creates a one-way induction of behaviour and eventually docile bodies (Galič et al., 2017). Therefore, an imbalance between the different stakeholders, players, teams, associations, publishers, developers, politics, etc. can result in undesirable repressive traits and damage the system, as stated above (Julkunen et al., 2021). For example, the publishers have full authority over who can or cannot play their game. If they use this position against the player base, the players can boycott the game and cause economic damage to the profit-oriented publishers.

These implications and thoughts are not intended to be exhaustive. Still, they show how a different rapport towards the body in esport due to its physical isolation while playing or the disconnection from the activity reveals problems that need to be tackled. On the other hand, this also opens interesting opportunities for sport and society to grasp the potentially positive aspects of esport and competitive gaming. Leaving esport entirely unregulated can lead to arbitrariness, while over-regulating is either not possible (as it matches repressive traits towards the players) or subverts potential positive aspects. Nevertheless, the physical body is a central element of sport and it becomes evident that not only do the distinctive physical and motoric requirements in esport require research but also that the body is represented in competitions in a variety of ways since the digital mediation of the movements diminishes the physical social interaction which is usually implied by sport.

Conclusion

In this paper, we have discussed the social role of the physical body in esport. We used Foucault's (1977) panopticism to discuss how the ambiguity of physical and digital corporeality affects disciplinary mechanisms in competitive gaming. Since the physical body is not on display, the disciplinary mechanisms are unlikely to work like in traditional sports. This results in a different perception of the body's social traits as a point of reference for social interaction, communication, and identification. It is unclear how far these roles can be picked up by corporeality in the digital realms: On the one hand, players identify with their in-game characters (Hao et al., 2020; Hussain et al., 2021; Riatti and Thiel, 2023), on the other hand, it is unclear whether the players can be exposed to disciplinary mechanisms via their digital avatars. Eventually, more research is needed to understand how far social traits of the physical body are embodied by digital corporeality.

Since sport is often regarded as a forerunner to future trends which will be adopted by society, it is possible to transfer some findings to other societal branches (Davenport, 2014). Esport, as a new form of sport providing a new movement practice compared to traditional sport, is a descendant of digitalization. Physical contact and therefore physical corporeality are reduced, and social interaction is mediated through electronic devices. Physical corporeality gives way to a digital embodiment, eventually affecting the way we need to consider the (social) role of the body (Thiel and Gropper, 2017). Still, scholars have shown how important it is to track physical corporeality even in situations where the physical body might not be visible (Thiel et al., 2019). Therefore, although in esport, corporeality can be perceived differently than in traditional sports, its physical aspect must be upheld. Generally speaking, the role of the body is not only changing in sportive contexts but presumably also in other societal areas and future research must keep track of the physical, psychological, and sociological implications which come along with this process.

Since this paper focuses on the physical body, it should be noted that the relevance of the digital body also needs thorough investigation. Therefore, this paper can be regarded as an initial approach treating the duality of the physical and digital body in esport from the physical perspective. The importance of the body (both physical and digital) in esport is undeniable, and it is an interesting field for sport science, while research about it is still in its infancy (Ekdahl, 2021a; Riatti and Thiel, 2023).

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Paolo Riatti did the conceptualization of the theoretical framework, reviewing the literature, formal analysis, writing, and revision – original draft; Ansgar Thiel did the conceptualization, supervision, and writing – review & editing.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Paolo Riatti

References

Abanazir

(2019) Institutionalisation in e-sports. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 13(2): 117–131.

Abanazir

(2022) The Olympic Movement and esports governance: Finding the right way of cooperating for diversity, equity, and inclusion. In: Tjønndal

(ed.) Social Issues in Esports. New York, NY: Routledge, 148–162.

Alkemeyer

Pille

(2006) Michel Foucault: Surveiller et punir-La naissance de la prison [1975]. In: Court

Eckhard (eds) Klassiker und Wegbereiter der Sportwissenschaft. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 431–441.

Andrews

(1993) Desperately seeking Michel: Foucault’s genealogy, the body, and critical sport sociology. Sociology of Sport Journal 10(2): 148–167.

Bale

(1994) Landscapes of Modern Sport. Leicester: Leicester University Press.

Bentham

(1791) Panopticon: Or, the Inspection-House. Dublin: Thomas Byrne.

Borggrefe

(2018) Esport gehört nicht unter das Dach des organisierten Sports. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research 48(3): 447–450.

Borggrefe

(2021) Systemtheoretische Überlegungen zur Unterscheidung von Sport und esport. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research 52(3): 408–418.

Boyne

(2000) Post-panopticism. Economy and Society 29(2): 285–307.

10.

Breuer

(2012) Der E-Sport – ein drittes Modell des professionellen Sports? In: Breuer

(ed.) E-Sport – Perspektiven aus Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft. Glückstadt: Hülsbusch, 91–116.

11.

Cole

(1993) Resisting the canon: Feminist cultural studies, sport, and technologies of the body. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 17(2): 77–97.

12.

Cole

Giardina

Andrews

(2004) Michel Foucault: Studies of power and sport. In: Giulianotti

(ed.) Sport and Modern Social Theorists. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 207–223.

13.

Cress

Kimmerle

(2008) Endowment heterogeneity and identifiability in the information-exchange dilemma. Computers in Human Behavior 24(3): 862–874.

14.

Czegledy

(2021) Esports integrity policies. Gaming Law Review 25(4): 161–170.

15.

Davenport

(2014) What businesses can learn from sports analytics. MIT Sloan Management Review 55(4): 10–13.

16.

Deleuze

(1992) What is a dispositif. In: Armstrong

(ed.) Michel Foucault, Philosopher: Essays Translated From the French and German. London: Pearson Education Ltd, 159–168.

17.

DiFrancisco-Donoghue

Werner

Douris

, et al. (2020) Esports players, got muscle? Competitive video game players’ physical activity, body fat, bone mineral content, and muscle mass in comparison to matched controls. Journal of Sport and Health Science 11(6): 725–730.

18.

Duncan

(1994) The politics of women's body images and practices: Foucault, the Panopticon, and Shape magazine. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 18(1): 48–65.

19.

Ekdahl

(2022) Both physical and virtual: on immediacy in esports. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 4: 883765.

20.

Ekdahl

(2021a) The embodiment of esports: Crossing the gap between physical and virtual . PhD Thesis, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics.

21.

Ekdahl

Our body does not have to end where digital screens begin. Academia Letters Article 1487. DOI: 10.20935/AL1487.

22.

Ekdahl

Ravn

(2019) Embodied involvement in virtual worlds: The case of esports practitioners. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 13(2): 132–144.

23.

Ekdahl

Ravn

(2021) Social bodies in virtual worlds: Intercorporeality in esports. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 21: 293–316.

24.

SPD, Grünen

and FDP (2021) Mehr Fortschritt wagen. Bündnis für Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit und Nachhaltigkeit. Available at: https://www.bundesregierung.de/resource/blob/974430/1990812/04221173eef9a6720059cc353d759a2b/2021-12-10-koav2021-data.pdf?download=1 (accessed 18 January 2023).

25.

Fiske

Hancock

(2016) Power Plays Power Works. London: Routledge.

26.

Ford

(2017) Virtuosos on the screen: Playing virtual characters like instruments in competitive Super Smash Bros. Melee. CHI’17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 6-11, 2017, Denver, CO, USA,1935–1948.

27.

Foucault

(1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York, NY: Pantheon.

28.

Foucault

(1980) Power/knowledge. New York, NY: Pantheon.

29.

Galič

Timan

Koops

B-J

(2017) Bentham, Deleuze and beyond: An overview of surveillance theories from the panopticon to participation. Philosophy & Technology 30(1): 9–37.

30.

Ghoshal

(2019) Ethics in esports. Gaming Law Review 23(5): 338–343.

31.

Goebeler

Standaert

Xiao

(2021) Hybrid sport configurations: The intertwining of the physical and the digital. Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 4-8, 2021, Honolulu, HI, USA, 5841–5890.

32.

Haggerty

(2006) Tear down the walls: On demolishing the panopticon. In: Lyon

(ed) Theorizing surveillance. The panopticon and beyond. Cullompton, UK: Willan, 23–45.

33.

Haggerty

Ericson

(2000) The surveillant assemblage. The British Journal of Sociology 51(4): 605–622.

34.

Hamari

Sjöblom

(2017) What is esports and why do people watch it? Internet Research 27(2): 211–232.

35.

Hao

Zhang

, et al. (2020) Conquering gender stereotype threat in “digit sports": Effects of gender swapping on female players’ continuous participation intention in esports. Scientific Programming 2020: 8818588.

36.

Haupt

Wolf

Heidenreich

(2021) Energy expenditure during esports. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin 72: 36–40.

37.

Hayday

Collison

(2020) Exploring the contested notion of social inclusion and gender inclusivity within esport spaces. Social Inclusion 8(3): 197–208.

38.

Hayday

Collison

Kohe

(2021) Landscapes of tension, tribalism and toxicity: Configuring a spatial politics of esport communities. Leisure Studies 40(2): 139–153.

39.

Heikkala

(1993) Discipline and excel: Techniques of the self and body and the logic of competing. Sociology of Sport Journal 10(4): 397–412.

40.

Heinemann

(2007) Einführung in die Soziologie des Sports. Schorndorf: Hofmann.

41.

Hemphill

(2005) Cybersport. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 32(2): 195–207.

42.

Hippe

Dornheim

Zeitvogel

, et al. (2017) Evaluation of machine learning algorithms for smurf detection. CERC2017, September 22-23, 2017, Karlsruhe, Germany, 65–68.

43.

Holt

(2016) Virtual domains for sports and games. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 10(1): 5–13.

44.

Hussain

Cunningham

, et al. (2021) “I can be who I am when I play Tekken 7”: E-sports women participants from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Games and Culture 16(8): 978–1000.

45.

Irwin

Naweed

(2020) BM’ing, throwing, bug exploiting, and other forms of (un)sportsmanlike behavior in CS:GO esports. Games and Culture 15(4): 411–433.

46.

Jansz

Martens

(2005) Gaming at a LAN event: The social context of playing video games. New Media & Society 7(3): 333–355.

47.

Jenny

Manning

Keiper

, et al. (2017) Virtual (ly) athletes: Where esports fit within the definition of “sport”. Quest (Grand Rapids, Mich ) 69(1): 1–18.

48.

Johns

(2000) Surveillance, subjectivism and technologies of power: An analysis of the discursive practice of high-performance sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 35(2): 219–234.

49.

Julkunen

Raatikainen

Rollins

, et al. (2021) Understanding the European business environment in esports: An ecosystem perspective. Nordic Journal of Business 70(1): 39–58.

50.

Kammler

Schneider

Johannes

(2014) Foucault Handbuch. Leben – Werk – Wirkung. Stuttgart, Weimer: J.B. Metzler.

51.

Kerr

De Paoli

Keatinge

(2014) Surveillant assemblages of governance in massively multiplayer online games: A comparative analysis. Surveillance & Society 12(3): 320–336.

52.

Krassen

Aupers

(2022) Pressure to play: Social pressure in online multiplayer games. The Information Society 38(1): 13–24.

53.

Kwak

Blackburn

Han

(2015) Exploring cyberbullying and other toxic behavior in team competition online games. CHI’15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, April 18-23, 2015, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 3739–3748.

54.

Lam

ATW

Perera

Quirante

KBA

, et al. (2020) E-athletes’ lifestyle behaviors, physical activity habits, and overall health and wellbeing: A systematic review. Physical Therapy Reviews 25(5–6): 449–461.

55.

Lang

(2010) Surveillance and conformity in competitive youth swimming. Sport, Education and Society 15(1): 19–37.

56.

Lapidot-Lefler

Barak

(2012) Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior 28(2): 434–443.

57.

Lenneis

Evans

Agergaard

(2021) Swimming as self-care – a Foucauldian analysis of swimming for Danish Muslim women. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 57(3): 401–420.

58.

Loy

(1991) Introduction—missing in action: The case of the absent body. Quest (Grand Rapids, Mich ) 43(2): 119–122.

59.

Lyon

(1993) An electronic panopticon? A sociological critique of surveillance theory. The Sociological Review 41(4): 653–678.

60.

Lyon

(2006) The search for surveillance theories. In: Lyon

(ed.) Theorizing Surveillance. New York, NY: Routledge, 3–20.

61.

Markula-Denison

Pringle

(2007) Foucault, Sport and Exercise: Power, Knowledge and Transforming the Self. London: Routledge.

62.

Markula

(1995) Firm but shapely, fit but sexy, strong but thin: The postmodern aerobicizing female bodies. Sociology of Sport Journal 12(4): 424–453.

63.

Mathiesen

(1997) The viewer society: Michel Foucault’s panopticon revisited. Theoretical Criminology 1(2): 215–234.

64.

Parry

(2019) E-sports are not sports. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 13(1): 3–18.

65.

Pringle

(2014) Foucauldian examinations of sport, gender and sexuality. In: Hargreaves

Anderson

(eds) Routledge Handbook of Sport, Gender and Sexuality. New York: Routledge, 417–425.

66.

Rail

Harvey

(1995) Body at work: Michel Foucault and the sociology of sport. Sociology of Sport Journal 12(2): 164–179.

67.

Reinhart

(2014) Sportwissenschaft. In: Kammler

Parr

Schneider

(eds) Foucault Handbuch. Leben – Werk – Wirkung. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, 439–441.

68.

Reinhart

Krüger

(2007) Funktionen des Sports im modernen Staat und in der modernen Diktatur. Historical Social Research 32(1): 43–77.

69.

Riatti

Thiel

(2021) The societal impact of electronic sport: A scoping review. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research 52(3): 433–446.

70.

Riatti

Thiel

(2023) The role of the body in electronic sport: a scoping review. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research. DOI: 10.1007/s12662-023-00880-z.

71.

Rinehart

(1998) Born-again sport: Ethics in biographical research. In: Rail

(ed.) Sport and Postmodern Times. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 33–47.

72.

Robertson

Eime

Westerbeek

(2019) Community sports clubs: Are they only about playing sport, or do they have broader health promotion and social responsibilities? Annals of Leisure Research 22(2): 215–232.

73.

Schary

Jenny

Koshy

(2022) Leveling up esports health: Current status and call to action. International Journal of Esports 1(1): 1–16.

74.

Schmidt

SCE

Kowal

Woll

(2018) Body composition of hobby gamers in comparison to German reference data. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research 48(3): 438–446.

75.

CDU, CSU and SPD (2017) Ein neuer Aufbruch für Europa. Eine neue Dynamik für Deutschland. Ein neuer Zusammenhalt für unser Land. Available at: https://www.bundesregierung.de/resource/blob/974430/847984/5b8bc23590d4cb2892b31c987ad672b7/2018-03-14-koalitionsvertrag-data.pdf?download=1 (accessed 18 January 2023).

76.

Sugden

(2012) Watched by the games: Surveillance and security at the Olympics. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 47(3): 414–429.

77.

Sundén

(2003) Material Virtualities: Approaching Online Textual Embodiment. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

78.

Tapsell

(2019) Video games in China: beyond the great firewall. Available at: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-10-26-gaming-beyond-the-great-firewall-of-china (accessed 5 January 2022).

79.

Taylor

(2009) Gaming ethics, rules, etiquette, and learning. In: Ferdig

(ed) Handbook of Research on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 1057–1067.

80.

Taylor

(2012) Raising the Stakes: E-Sports and the Professionalization of Computer Gaming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

81.

Taylor

Potrac

Nelson

, et al. (2017) An elite hockey player’s experiences of video-based coaching: A poststructuralist reading. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 52(1): 112–125.

82.

Thiel

Gropper

(2017) Sport in an individualized and digitalized society: More important than ever? European Journal for Sport and Society 14(4): 287–290.

83.

Thiel

John

Frahsa

(2019) Qualitative interviews in sport and physical activity research – do not forget the body. European Journal for Sport and Society 16(1): 1–4.

84.

Thiel

John

(2020) Ist eSports Sport? Über die Ausbreitung virtueller Wettkämpfe und deren potenzielle Folgen. In: Hofmann

(ed) Das Phänomen E-Sport: Eine wissenschaftliche Annäherung aus verschiedenen Disziplinen. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer, pp. 27–58.

85.

Thiel

Seiberth

Mayer

(2013) Sportsoziologie. Ein Lehrbuch in 13 Lektionen. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer.

86.

Tjostheim

Waterworth

(2020) Inverting the panopticon to safeguard privacy in ambient environments: An exploratory study. In: Streitz

Konomi

(eds) Distributed, Ambient and Pervasive Interactions. Cham: Springer, 348–361.

87.

Tomkinson

van den Ende

(2022) Thank you for your compliance’: Overwatch as a disciplinary system. Games and Culture 17(2): 198–218.

88.

Trepte

Reinecke

Juechems

(2012) The social side of gaming: How playing online computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers in Human Behavior 28(3): 832–839.

89.

Turner

Lee Ludvigsen

(2022) Theorizing surveillance and social spacing through football: The fan-opticon and beyond. Sociology Compass 17(2): 1–14.

90.

Tweedie

Rosenthal

Holden

(2022) Doping in esports. In: Tjønndal A (ed.) Social Issues in Esports. New York: Routledge, pp. 101–114. doi:10.4324/9781003258650-10.

91.

Vaamonde

AG-N

Toribio

Molero

, et al. (2018) Beneficios cognitivos, psicológicos y personales del uso de los videojuegos y esports: Una revisión. Revista de Psicología Aplicada al Deporte y al Ejercicio Físico 3(2): 1–14.

92.

Van Nuenen

(2015) Playing the panopticon: Procedural surveillance in dark souls. Games and Culture 11(5): 510–527.

93.

Willimczik

(2019) Esport „ist“ nicht Sport – eSport und Sport haben Bedeutungen. Eine sprachphilosophische analyse anstelle von ontologischen Auseinandersetzungen. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research 49(1): 78–90.

94.

Wolf

(2014) Panoptismus. In: Kammler

Parr

Schneider

(eds) Foucault Handbuch. Leben – Werk – Wirkung. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, 279–284.

95.

Xiao

(2021) People's Republic of China legal update: The notice on further strictly regulating and effectively preventing online video gaming addiction in minors. Gaming Law Review 25(9): 379–382.