Observations on sport and eSport from a systems theory perspective: Theoretical reflections on differentiating sport and eSport and on the functions and consequences of an integration

Abstract

This article takes up the sport policy and sports science debate on the recognition of competitive computer and video games—so-called eSport—as sport and pursues the goal of differentiating sport and eSport on the basis of systems theory considerations and reflecting on the functions and consequences of recognizing eSport as sport. It begins by addressing the questions of how sport can be observed at all with the help of theories and which epistemological position underlies the systems theory approach. This is followed by a consideration of sport in terms of systems theory as a social functional system and by reflection on forms of structural coupling between the sport system and other social functional systems. In light of these theoretical considerations, the connectivity of eSport to the sport system as well as the functions and consequences of such an integration for structural couplings between the sport system and the systems of health, education, the economy, mass media, and politics are analyzed. The article concludes with an outline of perspectives for future scientific observation of sport and eSport.

Introduction

Competitive video and computer games operating under the term “eSport” are enjoying ever-increasing popularity worldwide, as reflected in the rising number of players and spectators. National and international competitions and tournament series have been established for diverse game titles, giving players the opportunity to compete online but also in face-to-face events. Professionalization processes and high prize money are an expression of growing audience interest, which is evident both in live events and in broadcasts on relevant online platforms.

“eSport” refers to the competitive playing of video or computer games on computers, consoles, or mobile devices. There is as yet no generally accepted definition of eSport. On the basis of a systematic review of 461 scientific articles regarding their understanding of eSport, Formosa et al. (2022) describe eSport as “organized competitive digital gaming, played on a spectrum of professionalism—its organized and competitive aspects lead to elements often associated with, but not necessary for esports, including: spectators and fans; tournaments and leagues; training and skill development; and sponsorship, commercial partnerships, and prize money” (p. 20). The players use input devices (computer mouse, keyboard, controller) to control avatars, pursuing different goals depending on the particular game and the genre. The most important genres include first-person shooter games (e.g. Counterstrike: Global Offensive, PUBG: Battlegrounds, Call of Duty), in which the avatars can symbolize things like fighting soldiers, police, or terrorists, and multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA) games (e.g. League of Legends, Dota), in which the avatars represent fantasy figures (e.g. monsters). Common to these two genres is that victory in the competition is determined in each case by simulated acts of killing and destruction. A third category of games is sport simulations (e.g. Madden NFL, FIFA, NBA2K), which simulate popular sports like American football, soccer, or basketball in a video game. The competitions are held both online and in the context of events in which the players are physically present. Depending on the game, the players may compete individually or in teams.

The growing popularity of eSport has also led sports associations worldwide to consider whether video and computer games should be included in the program of national and international sport competitions, with the particular aim of enhancing their attractiveness for a young audience. While the 2022 Asian Games included official competitions in a total of eight eSport titles, the International Olympic Committee has thus far maintained a more skeptical stance toward a possible integration of eSport competitions. IOC President Thomas Bach, for example, issued a public statement to the effect that elements glorifying violence and simulated acts of killing are not compatible with Olympic values, thus clearly rejecting the inclusion of shooter games (Wade, 2018). However, the IOC has shown itself to be increasingly open toward other game genres, particularly toward sport simulations: “Encourage the development of virtual sports and further engage with video gaming communities” is formulated as a recommendation in the “Olympic Agenda 2020 + 5” (IOC, 2023b). Even so, eSport competitions have yet to be included in the Olympic program. In 2023, however, the IOC held the first “Olympic Esports Series” with a total of ten “virtual and simulated sports competitions” (IOC, 2023a, 2023c). They included, on the one hand, computer and video games in which avatars controlled by input devices simulate different sports, and on the other, competitions in which sporting movements executed by athletes are digitally reproduced.

However, the IOC has met with widespread disapproval from the eSport community for this game selection, because it does not include the most popular eSport titles, like Counter Strike, Dota 2, League of Legends, or Overwatch, which are played and watched by millions worldwide. Fortnite, included in the “Olympic Esports Series” as a computer game in the discipline “sport shooting,” is indeed one of the most successful eSport titles. At the IOC event, however, it is played in a special mode in which, rather than fighting each other as they usually do in the game, the players aim at objects in a similar way to sport shooting (IOC, 2023c). Matt Woods, CEO and co-founder of the eSports marketing and talent agency AFK, for example, roundly criticized the IOC for its decision: “Unfortunately, [the IOC's] announcement left us feeling disappointed and, honestly, a little embarrassed. Instead of working with existing game publishers or well-established tournaments, it seems that the Olympic committee has instead decided to use this event as a marketing vehicle for brand-new, poorly thought out, unlicensed mobile games” (MacDonald, 2023). The IOC evidently prefers different games than the eSport community and has a different view of which forms of eSport are potentially worthy of recognition as Olympic sports and which are not.

This debate on the inclusion of eSport competitions in the program of international sports federations inevitably raises questions concerning the connectivity of sport and eSport: To what extent is it possible to integrate sport and eSport? What opportunities would such an integration create for the sport system, and what risks would it entail? The present article takes up these questions by, first, analyzing in a systems theory perspective to what extent eSport may be observed as sport and, second, reflecting on what functions and consequences would be associated with the integration of sport and eSport.

We begin this analysis by reflecting on the current state of research on the problem of integrating sport and eSport and specifying the research interest of the article, before going on to epistemologically classify the underlying systems theory analytical framework. Then we present systems theory considerations on sport as a social subsystem and on the structural couplings of this subsystem with other social subsystems and take these considerations as a basis for examining the connectivity of eSport as well as the functions and consequences of its integration into sport. In conclusion, we present an outline of perspectives for future scientific observation of sport and eSport.

State of research

In the following, we reflect on existing work on the connectivity of sport and eSport as well as on the functions and consequences of integration, taking our central research questions as a starting point. On this basis, we then specify the research interest of this article. If we first consider the question of whether eSport can be regarded as sport, then we find that studies conducted so far arrive at different conclusions, depending on the scientific perspective and the understanding of sport they apply (for an overview, see the scoping review by Riatti and Thiel, 2023). On the one hand, it is possible to find research that marks out the differences between sport and eSport and consequently rejects a recognition of eSport as sport. Jenny et al. (2017), for example, conclude that the physical movement involved in eSport (e.g. operating a controller) is not the crucial factor for the successful completion of the task: “How a button is pushed on a controller has no consequence on the outcome of an eSport competition” (p. 9). In addition, although there are organized eSport competitions (e.g. eSports World Convention, World e-Sports Games, World Cyber Games, etc.), most of them are not integrated into the organizational structures of existing sports associations. It is therefore not possible, the authors argue, to speak of an “institutionalization” of eSport as sport (p. 13). Parry (2019), who understands sport as “institutionalised rule-governed contests of human physical skill,” comes to a similar assessment. For him, eSport is not sport, because, first, “the contestants are physically distanced from the action” (p. 9), second, eSport lacks direct physicality, because “the sporting sense of ‘physical’ requires that the movements bear a direct relation to the outcome of the event” (p. 10), and third, unlike established sports, eSports do not have a permanent form of organization but rather “a ‘dispersed production process,’ where publishers organise tournaments for their own games” (p. 11). Hemmingsen (2023) too sees clear differences between eSport and sport with regard to “movement compression,” leading him to conclude that eSport should not be understood as sport. Whereas the “analogue” sport is characterized by the fact that the athlete's movement “immediately and inevitably expresses itself fully in what happens in the game itself” (p. 7), “in eSports the actions of the players undergo a translation between what the player does and what happens” (p. 7). In other words, there are differences between the physical action of the player and the movement of the avatar.

On the other hand, there is also research that emphasizes the similarities of sport and eSport, focusing primarily on their requirements at the motor and physiological-psychological levels. Van Hilvoorde and Pot (2016), Naraine (2021), and Ekdahl (2022), for example, contradict the assumption that eSport is not sufficiently physical and should therefore not be regarded as sport. Van Hilvoorde and Pot (2016) cite the concept of “motor action” developed by Tamboer (1992), which states among other things that it is not necessarily the body that has to be the object of movement in sports but also external objects intentionally moved by means of physical action. eSport too is characterized by a specific motor ability in the form of operating an input device with the aim of intentionally moving an external object—the avatar. Hence, eSport is comparable to sports like billiards or snooker: “Not the body itself is considered an obstacle that has to be displaced (cf. as far as possible in long jumping), the body becomes instrumental for displacing or moving another, external object (e.g. the billiard balls)” (van Hilvoorde and Pot, 2016: 19). Naraine (2021) takes up Parry's (2019) analysis, arguing that eSport is “human,” “physical,” “skill-based,” and “institutionalized” in the same way as sport, so it should also be recognized as sport. For Ekdahl (2022), the physical activity in eSport should not be separated from the virtual performance, because they are connected with each other in a hybrid way; eSport is “jointly physical and virtual, simultaneously interconnected through the subjective body of the practitioner” (p. 19), and therefore also involves direct physical experiences. With regard to physical requirements, various empirical studies also refer to the fact that successful eSport players have a “balanced body” (Witkowski, 2012) and exhibit performances comparable to top athletes in terms of aspects like “reaction time” (Bickmann et al., 2021) or “multiple object tracking performance” (Wechsler et al., 2021). Increased calorie consumption and a rise in blood pressure (Kane and Spradley, 2017) are also associated with eSport. Likewise, empirical findings on psychological abilities, stresses, and coping strategies of eSport players suggest analogies to sports (Gostilovich et al., 2023; Himmelstein et al., 2017; Kane and Spradley, 2017; Polman et al., 2018; Poulus et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2019). For example, successful eSport players, just like athletes, need to possess game-specific tactical knowledge as well as strategies for regulating emotions in order to deal with stressors such as competitive pressure or spectator presence.

It is also possible to find social science research that, while not recognizing all the elements of established definitions of sport (e.g. Gratton and Taylor, 2000; Guttmann, 2004; Rodgers, 1977; Suits, 2007) in eSport (as it lacks the element of physicality in particular), assume in view of the dynamics of social development in the context of digitalization that changing understandings of sport will bring about the future recognition of eSport as sport (Cunningham et al., 2018; Funk et al., 2018; Hallmann and Giel, 2018; Jonasson and Thiborg, 2010). Thiel and John (2018) as well as Riatti and Thiel (2023), for example, assume that sport, like other spheres of society, will increasingly shift to the digital world and virtual environments.

If we now turn to studies that address the social functions and consequences of an integration of eSport and sport, we find that they come to different conclusions (for a comprehensive overview, see the scoping review by Riatti and Thiel, 2021). The analyses focus particularly on economic and health-related opportunities and risks. From an economic point of view, they generally emphasize the advantages of integrating eSport, as this can open up new target groups and additional financial resources (see, e.g. Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017; Lee and Schoenstedt, 2011; Lopez et al., 2021; Pizzo et al., 2018; Seo, 2013). With regard to health, they attribute health-promoting effects to eSport on the one hand, for example when it comes to promoting fine motor and cognitive skills (cf. Besombes and Maillot, 2020; Polman et al., 2018), but describe psychological, physical, and social health risks on the other. These risks include psychological well-being (stress, depression, burnout), a healthy lifestyle (lack of nutrition, exercise, and sleep), physical overload, pain, and injuries (eyes, neck, hands, and back), or damage to mental abilities as well as interactive and prosocial behavior, among other things (cf. Anderson et al., 2010; KuMari et al., 2022; Lam et al., 2020; Madden and Harteveld, 2021; Ohno, 2022; Riatti and Thiel, 2024; Schary et al., 2022; Swing et al., 2010). In addition to such health risks, the studies also reflect on problematic implications for established sports and federations, such as increasing competition for sponsorship money and media attention (cf. Holden et al., 2017; Tjønndal, 2021).

In summary, the existing studies paint an ambivalent picture both with regard to the connectivity of sport and eSport and with regard to the functions and consequences of integration, the argumentation for or against connectivity and integration depending in each case on the criteria used and the perspective chosen. This finding comes as little surprise. In the present article, we too cannot and do not attempt to resolve the link between the criteria applied and the result of the analysis. Our aim is rather to supplement the scientific debate by offering an observation on the basis of sociological systems theory. In light of this theory, sport may be regarded as a communication system characterized by a specific logic of action that determines the demarcation of this system from its social environment as well as specific performance and exchange relationships with this environment. This perspective enables theoretically coherent reflection on both the connectivity of eSport to the logic of action of the sport system and the functions and consequences of integration in terms of possible consequences for performance and exchange relationships.

Epistemological considerations

On the basis of second-order cybernetics (as described by von Foerster), the constructivist epistemological program of sociological systems theory has distinguished itself from ontological descriptions of the world from the very beginning, focusing instead on the question of how the world is observed. The task in the present article is therefore not to determine what sport is but how it can be observed as a social phenomenon and how it can thus be distinguished from other phenomena (on these epistemological considerations in general, see Luhmann, 1994; for their application to sport, see Bette, 1999: 44).

A scientific observer observes the world on the basis of theories, that is, distinctions that guide observation, which should make it possible to order and understand the world. However, every observing system can “only see what it sees. It cannot see what it cannot see. It also cannot see that it cannot see what it cannot see” (Luhmann, 1986/2004: 52; our translation). Hence, every theory has its own “blind spot[s]” that can only be identified through an “observation of observations,” in other words, a “second-order observation” (Luhmann, 1994: 22). The second-order observation aims, with its own specific distinctions, to identify what distinctions the first-order observer has used, what is included in the observation and what has been left out. The first-order observer can thus be observed with regard to “what the observer is able to see with his distinctions and what he is not able to see” (Luhmann, 1994). Scientific insight therefore requires observers to make comprehensible the distinctions that guide their observation, meaning the way they observe a phenomenon, so that these distinctions can be observed by other observers with regard to possible “blind spots.” In this sense, the disclosure of distinctions that guide observation is the condition not only for the possibility of scientific follow-up communication but for knowledge gain in general.

Hence, the reason for observing the phenomenon of sport along the lines of Luhmann's sociological systems theory in the present article is to propose an observation that aims to grasp sport as a social phenomenon and to distinguish it from other phenomena. At the same time, it should explicitly encourage second-order observations, that is, follow-up communications, for the purpose of examining the distinctions that guide the observations made in the present article. They are shaped by the central premise that the phenomenon of sport cannot be adequately understood by reference to forms of physical strain and physiological or psychological reactions but rather demands consideration of social factors, that is, reflection on how sport becomes a socially relevant topic and what communicative connections it produces. The social is constructed in the form of social systems that consist of communication and continuously reproduce themselves in a self-referential, autopoietic manner, thus differentiating a system-specific logic of action that regulates the contingency of the actions of the individuals participating in the communication (for details, see Luhmann, 1995).

Sport as a social functional system and structural couplings

The sociological systems theory describes modern society as a functionally differentiated society divided into different social functional systems. This description results from the fact that Luhmann first differentiated the various subsystems according to the indispensable function they perform for society. The political system, for example, is responsible for making collectively binding decisions, the economic system provides goods and services to satisfy the needs of consumers, the scientific system produces “truths,” and the medical system is responsible for curing diseases. In the course of the so-called autopoietic turn, however, Luhmann ended up changing his conception of social theory from the concept of function to that of the binary code. Binary codes specify the autopoietic reproduction of social functional systems by describing the boundaries of meaning ¹ for connectable communications as well as for the system-specific logic of action that regulates the contingency of social action in the system (for details, see Luhmann, 1986/2004: 75). The positive value describes communicative connectivity in each case, while the negative value functions as a demarcation value. Hence, the political system operates along the binary code “to have power/to have no power” and accordingly suggests actions aimed at gaining or securing political power. The economy structures its system-specific communications along the code “to pay/to not pay”: Only those who have money can participate in economic communications, that is, buy or produce something. Those who have no money must first restore their solvency, for example through paid work or the sale of goods.

Cachay (1988), Schimank (1988), and Stichweh (1990) propose also describing sport as a social functional system on the basis of the theory of functional differentiation. We take Stichweh's (1990) proposal as the basis for discussion in the following, as we consider it to be the most suitable approach for describing the unity of sport in modern society: Whereas Cachay (1988) conducts historical analyses to determine the differentiation of the sports system via functional connection offered in the medical and education system, without taking into account its internal logic, and Schimank (1988) reduces sport to competitive and elite sport with the help of the binary code “win/lose,” ² Stichweh proposes an approach with which it is possible to include competitive actions in traditional sports as well as jogging or forms of exercise from youth culture such as skateboarding or parkour. In doing so, he succeeds in highlighting the specific internal logic of this sphere of society, that is, in explaining what is distinctive about sport, what distinguishes this system from other systems. ³

Stichweh (1990) defines sport in modern society as “the functional system that consists of all actions whose purpose is to communicate physical capability” (pp. 379, our translation) and highlights three aspects that characterize the unity of modern sport: They are, first, the reference to the body, which states that any operation in the context of sport is always an “action of the body” (p. 379). This action of the body describes, second, “a performance that is indicative of the capability of the body involved in it” (Stichweh, 1990). The special thing about performances in sport is, third, that “their meaning is not any exploitability of their effect outside of sport” (Stichweh, 1990). Hence, in sport, the performance is an end in itself, not merely a means to the end of achieving system-specific objectives.

What functions as performance in the sport system can be determined with the help of the concept of the “record,” which Stichweh, in contrast to Schimank, understands not as an “isolated extraordinary performance” to be surpassed but as the “trace left by each individual performance in the system”; in other words, the “aggregation of performances is used in the system as an expectation with regard to future performances” (Stichweh, 1990: 384). ⁴ In the same way, Stichweh then also criticizes Schimank's proposal of the code “win/lose,” because it limits sport to its aspect as a contest, to competitive performances (Stichweh, 1990: 385), thus leaving out of account physical performances that are not structured as a contest, such as that of the runner “who takes to the running track alone to test his 1500 m time” (Stichweh, 1990: 386). Stichweh thus proposes (physically) “perform/not perform” as a binary code that describes the unity of the entire sport system (Stichweh, 1990: 387). Hence, while “perform/not perform” serves as the guiding orientation and primary code of sport as a whole, “win/lose” is a secondary coding that specifies the logic of action characteristic of competitive sport.

The operations of the sport system are—like those of all social systems—communications that stimulate further communications: “The throw of a javelin may be understood as a communication to the effect that ‘I can throw the javelin this far!’” A distinctive feature of the sport system is that it “specializes in communication of and communication about physical performances” (Stichweh, 1990: 380). In other words, it offers two different communicative connections—an aspect that Stichweh mentions without elaborating on any further. However, reflection on this aspect may be found in Riedl (2006: 39), who argues that the sport system cannot maintain its autopoiesis exclusively on the basis of communication of physical performance, because the act of communication is reduced to non-linguistic actions of the body and is not based on forms of linguistic coding: One throws the javelin without describing this action verbally. According to Riedl, there is therefore an additional need for communication about physical performance, for example through referees or competition judges who verbalize the result of the physical performance and thus create meaningful connections for the communication of further physical performance. The audience of sport assumes a central function in this context by observing physical performances and communicating about them, thus transforming non-linguistic communication processes into linguistic ones and creating a conversational level for the description of sporting actions. As a result, the communicative connectivity of the system is increased and sporting actions are designated as such (Riedl, 2006: 60). ⁵

The theory of functional differentiation can be used on the one hand to describe the sport system as a self-referential communication context that autopoietically reproduces itself on the basis of the binary code (physically) “perform/not perform” and differentiates itself from other communication contexts. On the other hand, it can also be used to determine the relationship of sport to its social environment. Schimank (1988) already hints at this when he refers, as described above, to the “multifunctional exploitability” of sport in society. From a systems theory perspective, the relationship of sport to other social functional systems can be characterized by the concept of structural coupling, which describes how social functional systems can react to one another in spite of their autopoietic reproduction and “legitimate indifference” (Tyrell, 1978) toward the logic of action of the other systems. It is therefore a matter of the specific relation between the self-referential closedness of the systems and their openness to the environment (for details, see Luhmann, 2012: 49; and Luhmann, 2013: 108).

One speaks of structural coupling when system-specific communications contribute to solving the self-reference problem of the other system in the context of a reciprocal exchange of performances. The structural coupling of law and politics via the medium “constitution” can be cited here as an example: The legal system operates along the binary coding “right/wrong” and is thereby dependent on whether what is right and what is wrong is defined at all. This definition is provided by politics through constitutional legislation. Conversely, politics operates on the basis of the binary code “have power/not have power,” whereas the legal system watches over compliance with the constitution and defines who has political power and can make collectively binding decisions. Accordingly, each of the two systems depends on communications from the other system to maintain its self-referential mode of operation (passing of laws, administration of justice) (Luhmann, 2013: 108). An inter-systemic exchange of this kind also occurs between the sport system and other social functional systems, resulting in communicative connections in relation to both the communication of and about physical performance. Particularly worthy of mention here are structural couplings between sport and the systems of health, education, the economy, mass media, and politics (see Bette and Schimank, 1995: 52; Borggrefe and Cachay, 2012: 63; Dresen and Kläber, 2014: 58; Riedl, 2006: 63).

If one looks first at the structural coupling between the sport and health systems, the reciprocal exchange of performances for solving the self-reference problem of the other system may be described as follows: The sport-specific communication of physical performance can be used in a therapeutical as well as in a preventive sense to treat diseases or to promote health. Conversely, a minimum level of health is a prerequisite for physical performance to be communicated at all. However, this reciprocal relationship does not change the fact that both are autonomous, self-referentially operating functional systems.

The structural coupling of the sport and education system is based on the fact that sport—for example in the context of physical education at school—is declared to be an educational content and is thus connected to the mediation communications in the education system. In this way, the education system plays an important part in solving the self-reference problem of the sport system by contributing to the spread and societal legitimation of sport. This works insofar as the education system attributes positive educational effects to sport.

The structural coupling between sport and politics appears on the one hand in relation to the communication of physical performances, since politics in society is not only responsible for making collectively binding decisions but also has tasks to fulfill regarding the welfare state, which concerns healthcare as well as the promotion of settings in which knowledge and values are imparted with educational intent. The welfare state's connectivity to sporting communications is also reflected in integrative capacities with regard to people of different social, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. On the other hand, communication about physical performances opens up opportunities for political connections, because politics is interested in the audience of sport, which it would like to transform into voters in accordance with its own logic of action, and wants to use the performances of sport to promote identification and national representation. ⁶ In return for the health-, education-, integration-, and identification-related performances it receives from sport, politics provides sport with important resources it needs to maintain system-specific communication, such as sport facilities and funding.

The structural coupling between sport and the economy as well as sport and mass media is related primarily to communication about physical performances and the audience interest generated by elite sport in particular. Just like politics, the economy and mass media too want to transform the audience of sports into consumers or media recipients (TV viewers, newspaper readers, internet users) according to their own logic of action. Sport offers the economy a wide range of advertising opportunities for specific target groups as well as an improved image that has the potential to rub off on products and boost their sales. For mass media, it offers a constant stream of exciting and newsworthy events that generate a broad media reach. In return, the economy and the mass media provide sport, first of all, with the financial resources (sponsorship money, payment for broadcasting rights) it needs to maintain the continuous reproduction of (top) athletic performances.

The connectivity of eSport and functions and consequences of an integration

If we now look at the phenomenon of “eSport” in the light of the theoretical considerations on the functional system of sport and its structural couplings, then we need to reflect first on whether eSport can be connected meaningfully to communication of and about physical performance. Second, we need to analyze what functions and consequences the communicative inclusion of eSport would have for the structural coupling of the sport system with other systems. Hence, the following reflection refers both to the fundamental communicative connectivity of eSports in the sport system and, prospectively, to the functional analysis of possible effects of an inclusion of eSport on the relations of sport to its social environment. The reflections remain in each case at the level of theoretical considerations that can serve as distinctions to guide observations for empirical investigations.

Meaningful connections for eSport?

If we consider eSport along the three characteristics defined by Stichweh for determining the unity of sport, we can note the following: The first characteristic—the action of the body—is present in eSport via the operation of the input device used to control the avatar. The second characteristic—the performance that is indicative of the capability of the body involved in it—is also present, because eSport players develop specific motor abilities and skills with regard to the “clicking” of the input device that requires a lot of practice and makes the difference between victory and defeat in the competition. However, the third characteristic—communication of physical performance as an end in itself—is not present in eSport. eSport players do not communicate “I can click!” or “I can click better than you!” Rather, clicking is only a means to the end of moving an avatar. Clicking a mouse or pressing keys on a keyboard alone does not generate any communicative connections, neither with regard to communication of nor with regard to communication about physical performances. Similarly, the difference between winning or losing in eSport is not a matter of how many clicks per minute one manages or what combination of key strokes one is capable of achieving through coordination skills but of how many goals an avatar shoots in the soccer simulation, how many monsters it kills, terrorists its shoots, or tanks it destroys to make territorial gains and take the enemy base. The avatars of course do not move independently of the player's clicking, but the clicking remains only a means to an end; the physical performance cannot be understood as an end in itself. This notion can be illustrated with an example from music: Like eSport players, pianists undoubtedly also produce highly complex physical performances, but they do so not to communicate their virtuosity on the keys but to make music, and so far nobody has come up with the idea of observing piano playing as a sport, even when it takes place in the context of a competition (like the “American Music Talent Competition” in the USA and “Jugend musiziert” in Germany). Similarly, the motor activity of clicking is unsuitable for observing competitive computer and video games as sports. ⁷ If the observation of clicking were significant for the creation of meaning, it would hardly be possible to organize an eSport broadcast without also showing the clicking hands parallel to the virtual action on the screen. Neither would it be allowed to shield the clicking players from opponents and spectators with containers, as is often the case at competitions in large arenas.

On the basis of the observation of sport and eSport in light of Stichweh's considerations, we can further clarify the findings of previous studies: The statement of Jenny et al. (2017: 9) that “how a button is pushed on a controller has no consequence on the outcome of an eSport competion” seems misleading, because the outcome of the virtual game is of course not independent of the operation of the input device. However, the key difference from sport is that in eSport, what determines the assignment of victory and defeat is not an observation of physical performance but rather what Hemmingsen (2023: 7) describes as a “translation between what the player does and what happens.” As already explained by Parry (2019: 10), eSport does not in this regard satisfy the “sporting sense of ‘physical,'” which requires that “the movements bear a direct relation to the outcome of the event” and, stated more precisely in systems-theoretical terms, that they generate communicative connections in a sporting sense.

Functions and consequences for structural couplings

In light of the above considerations on the structural couplings between the sport system and other social functional systems, the inclusion of eSport in the communication context of “sport” should have very different effects with regard to the systems concerned. If we first take a look at the coupling with the health system, it may be assumed that eSport would detract massively from the performances provided to the health system, because competitive computer and video games undermine the positive effects attributed to sport with regard to the cure and prevention of diseases associated with physical inactivity (see, e.g. Lam et al., 2020; Madden and Harteveld, 2021; Schary et al., 2022). They are limited to finger movement and promote a general lack of movement due to being performed in a sitting position in front of a screen. In addition, the WHO classified computer game addiction as an official disease in 2018 (WHO, 2023). Also worthy of note in this connection is the discussion about the increasing prevalence of myopia in children and adolescents, which is associated with media use and a lack of exposure to sunlight.

Negative effects may also be expected with regard to performances provided to the education system: Findings from neuroscience indicate that computer and video games have a problematic influence on children, adolescents, and young adults, for example in terms of gambling addiction, increased aggressiveness, decreased prosocial behavior, and impaired empathy skills and attentiveness (see, e.g. Anderson et al., 2010; KuMari et al., 2022; Ohno, 2022; Swing et al., 2010). This is compounded by problems of pedagogical legitimacy, which result above all from the fact that the computer and video games that dominate the competition scene in eSport, that are most commercially successful, and that attract the most players and spectators are the games involving the simulation of killing, destroying, and conquering—in other words, contexts of meaning that are incompatible in pedagogical terms with sport and the ethical values attributed to it.

In the interest of avoiding misunderstandings, it is important to emphasize that the above-described relationships with the health and education systems are based on positive health and education attributions, which characterize sport as a whole, even though it is quite ambivalent in its health and educational effects in that it also produces negative effects, as may be seen in the example of the knockout in boxing or the negative side effects of elite sport (such as overexertion of the athlete's body, doping, or interference with educational and vocational careers). If eSport were to be integrated, ⁸ however, it may be assumed that this would again significantly intensify the negative effects, particularly with regard to educational and health problems, as negative attributions pertaining above all to the discourse on diseases caused by physical inactivity and the debate on violence should significantly outweigh positive attributions, for example regarding the promotion of cognitive and social skills.

With regard to the relationship of the sport system with the political system, possible consequences of an inclusion of eSport appear ambivalent: As discussed above, negative consequences in terms of the performances provided by the sport system may be expected at the level of health and education, which would likely also affect the fulfillment of welfare state tasks. On the other hand, the political system is always also interested in attracting spectators and the athletes themselves as voters, and as eSport appeals in particular to large numbers of male youths and young men as players and spectators, a particularly prominent political goal in this regard would be to attract this group as voters by recognizing and legitimizing eSport as sport.

With regard to the economy and mass media, by contrast, an integration of eSport would clearly promote structural couplings, because eSport attracts a very large audience, which can be used in the context of sponsoring and press coverage to solve the self-reference problems of the economy and mass media and which would likely also secure significant financial resources for sport (see, e.g. Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017; Lee and Schoenstedt, 2011; Pizzo et al., 2018; Seo, 2013). However, it should also be emphasized that systemic problems of eSport, such as those concerning sexism or the debate about “killer games,” can affect structural couplings with the economy and mass media in the same way that doping does in elite sport.

To sum up the theoretical considerations, we can state that eSport cannot be meaningfully connected to the communications of the sport system, because eSport is not observed via the communication of physical performance and the physical performance of clicking in eSport is not an end in itself but merely a means of controlling an avatar. As far as the communicative inclusion of eSport and an accompanying change in the boundaries of the meaning of sport are concerned, it may be expected to have different effects on the structural couplings of the sport system with its social environment: While the inclusion of eSport would likely have a clearly negative effect on the reciprocal exchange of performances with the health and education system, there are indications that it would have positive effects in the area of the economy and mass media, which could lead to an intensification of performance relationships and provide sport with access to considerable financial resources. The consequences of structural coupling with the political system, on the other hand, may be seen as ambivalent: While the inclusion of eSport would likely have a negative effect on welfare state tasks in the areas of healthcare and education, it can certainly be expected to have positive effects in terms of attracting eSport-oriented voter groups.

Conclusion

Existing studies dealing with the integration of sport and eSport come to very different conclusions, and it comes as little surprise that the arguments for or against integration depend on the criteria applied and the perspective chosen. In the present article, we too could not and did not attempt to resolve the link between the criteria applied and the result of the analysis. Our intention was rather to enrich the scientific debate by offering a further observation on the distinction between sport and eSport. In essence, the aim was to observe based on systems theory considerations the extent to which sport and eSport can be integrated and what functions and consequences such an integration would have for sport. The main result of this observation with regard to the first aspect of integrability is that sport and eSport differ in that the communication of physical performance is an end in itself in sport, whereas in eSport it is limited to the operation of an input device and is thus a means to the end of controlling an avatar. Even though the physical action on which eSport is based is doubtlessly associated with high motor requirements, it cannot, as Stichweh would have it, be meaningfully connected to sport, because eSport players do not communicate their virtuosity at operating an input device. Rather, they play a computer or video game that produces further follow-up communications and can be observed by spectators only as a digital event. The theoretical reflection presented in this article thus supplements and clarifies the results of previous studies, which indicate, for example, that who wins and who loses in eSports is not determined on the basis of motor activity (Jenny et al., 2017) and that there is a physical distance between the players and the action (Parry, 2019) or a translation between the players’ actions and what happens in the game (Hemmingsen, 2023). With regard to the second aspect, the functions and consequences of integration, the systems-theoretical reflection supports the results of previous studies, according to which performance and exchange relationships between sport and other social subsystems can be influenced both positively and negatively depending on the respective logic of action—economic, political, educational, health-related (for an overview, see Riatti and Thiel, 2021).

The results of this analysis open up perspectives for further scientific observation of sport and eSport, two of which we would like to at least hint at in conclusion. The first perspective concerns the theoretically relevant question of the indispensable function of sport in modern society. From a systems theory perspective, it has been assumed so far that sport, unlike other subsystems, does not derive its significance from a socially indispensable function but from specific performances it provides for other subsystems within the context of structural couplings. However, far-reaching processes of social change associated with increasing digitalization are now likely leading to a situation in which the communication of physical performances, which constitutes the sport system, is becoming considerably more important and could thus also acquire the status of a socially indispensable function. After all, nearly all spheres of modern society—above the economy, mass media, politics, science, education, the military, medicine, and health—are confronted with profound processes of change as a result of progressive digitalization, the effect of which is primarily to accelerate processes of disembodiment. The more this progresses, the more important will become spheres of society that still enable direct physical experiences and that society urgently needs if it is to mitigate the consequences of digitalization. Hence, the function of communicating physical performances will likely become socially indispensable to the extent that only in sport can one still experience immediacy with the help of the body, which is becoming increasingly impossible in other spheres of society. ⁹ Theoretically elaborated points of departure for an analysis of this socially significant function of sport may be found, for example, in works on the paradox of modern physicality (Bette, [1989] 2005) and on adventure and high-risk sport (Bette, 2004), which combine ideas from systems theory and sociology of the body as well as thoughts on reflexive modernization. With regard to the debate on the recognition of eSport as sport, these theoretical considerations justify the assumption that it would be counterproductive in terms of safeguarding the continued existence and social significance of sport to promote a “digitalization of sport activity” through the integration of eSport.

As the differentiation or integration of sport and eSport is likely to be influenced not least by corresponding decisions made by sport organizations, a second scientifically significant perspective opens up at the level of organizational theory. In concrete terms, this involves an analysis of the decision to recognize or not to recognize eSport as sport, as well as of the functions and consequences this decision entails for sport development and the social status of sport. The IOC's handling of the eSport phenomenon described at the beginning of this article exemplifies the uncertainty and ambivalence of such decisions: On the one hand, the IOC evidently does not want to close itself off completely to eSport, not least in order to be able to exploit positive effects with regard to the large audience it attracts, especially among children, youths, and young adults, as well as the associated opportunities for coupling with the economy and mass media. On the other hand, the selective choice of games for the “Olympic Esports Series” indicates that the IOC has evidently also considered possible negative consequences on education and health. This may be seen first of all in its refusal to include shooter games, as the simulation of violence and acts of killing is incompatible with Olympic values. Moreover, in addition to computer and video games in which sports are merely simulated by avatars controlled by input devices, it has also included competitions in which athletes actually perform sporting actions in the sense of communicating physical performances, which are then merely depicted digitally. This strengthens the movement component of digital sport and thus also the positive health effect attributed to sport. On the whole, however, the public response to the establishment of the “Olympic Esports Series” shows that it remains a difficult balancing act for the sports federations to adequately weigh up the functions and consequences of an integration of eSport and make decisions that preserve the legitimacy of sport in the long term.