EPT
By now, most of you will have undoubtedly heard about the World Esports Association. The leaked images, the Reddit Q&A , the James ‘Kennigit’ Lampkin interview , and the press release itself have all generated enough buzz that it is almost impossible to miss. ESL and eight founding teams have created an association with the purported goal of providing regulation in the esports industry. They state the laudable mission of attempting to bring teams, players, and organizers to the same table to make decisions that would be fair to all parties involved.
Surely, this current “Wild West” era of esports must soon meet its demise, no? And what better way to bring about the end of lawlessness than with a global governing body comprised of representatives from many facets of the industry, led by a board of experienced esports businessmen and a lawyer who used to work with the Union of European Football Associations? After all, it’s not like there’s any reason to question their motives, is there?
Perhaps the biggest spectre looming over this entire ordeal is the dreaded possibility of exclusivity. ESL has been attached to rumors of attempting to form an exclusive league for Counter-Strike in the not-so-distant past; this association seems at best the remnants of those talks, and at worst a PR twist on the unpopular concept. For as many times as WESA includes variations of “transparent” in its vision and mission statements, an outside impression leaves one with a sense of marked secrecy.
The fact that ESL is the only tournament organizer involved in WESA seems rather strange. It is true that they coordinated with ECS and the E-League in terms of league schedules, but beyond that, it seems as if ESL made little effort to include other organizers who will undoubtedly be impacted by the actions of WESA in its formation. In his interview with Richard Lewis, ESL employee Kennigit said that “the fundamental structure of WESA doesn’t allow for more organizers to become members” but that they were “absolutely open to governing other leagues if the opportunity arose”. These statements seem at odds with one another, seemingly implying that WESA simultaneously excludes other organizers yet wishes to preside over them.
@MrAdamAp I can confirm that CEVO wasn't approached by WESA either.
— Chris Pipher (@chris_pipher) May 13, 2016
Just to clarify that at no point were we at @Gfinity approached or included in any conversations around the formation of WESA.
— Martin Wyatt (@TheMartinWyatt) May 13, 2016
Representatives from other organizers have come forward claiming that they were not contacted by WESA in its formative stage. MLG, CEVO, and Gfinity all stand to be impacted by the decisions that WESA makes moving forward, yet have no say in the standards the association wishes to set. It’s difficult to imagine a functioning governing body failing to have representation from such an important part of its sector, but yet WESA is quite deficient in this regard. Even if one takes their statements at face value, it’s easy to see an abuse case as WESA acts to benefit ESL to the potential detriment of other organizers.
Officially, of course, WESA states that members teams are not restricted from attending or competing in unsanctioned events, leaving it up to the member teams to decide. They point to the previously mentioned ECS and E-League as examples of their teams not being held to exclusive deals. The further one digs, however, the more tenuous this idea becomes. None of the parties involved outright deny the future possibility. When pressed on the issue, Kennigit gives this answer:
Kennigit:
The way we think about exclusivity is like this—exclusivity, isn’t something that a single independent league can “force” in esports. When it is forced, it has been almost always forced badly and we have a history in our ecosystem showing that. What we want WESA to be is a system that is comprehensive enough that member teams and players can come together and make decisions about what our collective future should look like. If you talk to casters, players, teams, leagues and fans pretty much everyone is in alignment - “there is too much…but its unsolvable”. I don’t think it’s going to be an Exclusive or Non-Exclusive future decided with one key decision. WESA teams will continue to play in large events and leagues like ECS and ELEAGUE, and as more teams and players join the association there will be constant discussion about where we should go. What you will start to see more of though is standardization of what those teams or players expect when attending events, and a better handle on the overall scheduling of our space.
The way we think about exclusivity is like this—exclusivity, isn’t something that a single independent league can “force” in esports. When it is forced, it has been almost always forced badly and we have a history in our ecosystem showing that. What we want WESA to be is a system that is comprehensive enough that member teams and players can come together and make decisions about what our collective future should look like. If you talk to casters, players, teams, leagues and fans pretty much everyone is in alignment - “there is too much…but its unsolvable”. I don’t think it’s going to be an Exclusive or Non-Exclusive future decided with one key decision. WESA teams will continue to play in large events and leagues like ECS and ELEAGUE, and as more teams and players join the association there will be constant discussion about where we should go. What you will start to see more of though is standardization of what those teams or players expect when attending events, and a better handle on the overall scheduling of our space.
As of now, there isn’t a strict exclusivity deal, but the potential for one still exists. Without representation of the interests of competing organizers, this governing body would have to be exceptionally altruistic to avoid introducing biases toward ESL in its standards and/or regulations. It may not negatively impact larger leagues like ECS and E-League as they are able to maintain a level of parity with ESL, but smaller organizers may be left behind as they are unable to meet the demands that WESA puts upon them.
This is perhaps one of the more overlooked aspects of the association, ignoring any sort of potential backroom dealings or ulterior motives. As a whole, WESA is designed and structured to benefit only the upper echelon of esports. They are obviously willing to work with the organizers that have enough money to attract their member teams, but fall short of ensuring the overall health of competition between organizers that is vital to combating stagnancy. In this regard, it isn’t so much a change of status quo as a continuation of it, as teams already have the option to pick and choose which events they wish to attend, and Kennigit admits as much:
Kennigit:
If you look at Dota, you already see plenty of teams turning down events and leagues and that has started in CS as teams and players begin to prioritize more. I think that will continue in the future as the challenges our industry face become more complicated. With WESA there will just be more structure and alignment to the process.
If you look at Dota, you already see plenty of teams turning down events and leagues and that has started in CS as teams and players begin to prioritize more. I think that will continue in the future as the challenges our industry face become more complicated. With WESA there will just be more structure and alignment to the process.
This begs the question: why is WESA even needed if teams in other esports have no problems with being more selective? DotA has its fair share of issues, but the diversity of events that its fans enjoy is larger than in almost any other esport, and this is due at least in part to the meritocratic nature of the scene. Having a governing body that does not include a range of organizers risks stifling this sort of healthy competition, pigeonholing the fan experience and stunting the innovation within the space.
Similarly, the requirements for member teams seem rather restrictive. They include having multiple titles, despite WESA currently operating solely in CS:GO , and, to quote the origin post of the Reddit Q&A, “having a long history of developing and fostering AAA esports talent”. These requirements amount to a vetting process, a raised barrier of entry could squeeze out the small to mid-size upstarts in the space should WESA gain the influence it desires. These fledgling teams are the ones who most often need the sorts of regulations and protections that WESA would afford, yet they are effectively left out in the cold by design.
WESA certainly has the potential, however small, to become a monopolistic entity, not entirely unlike Ma Bell or Standard Oil. At its most benign, it is a hegemony of the esports establishment that looks to leverage its collective influence to further its own interests. One cannot blame these organizations for banding together to look out for their security, but one can question if the actions they take will have a positive impact on the future of esports.
WESA is continually being compared to leagues like the NHL and FIFA by its founders and by those in the press in terms of how it will change the industry, usually in a positive light. It is true that the existence of the association, should it prove successful, may indeed lend a sense of legitimacy to esports that it currently lacks, bringing it closer to traditional sports in how it operates.
This idea is not an uncommon one, as there are obvious similarities between esports and traditional sports. The concept of a unifying body was floated (gloated, even) in a recent article on the Rift Herald, written by former NFL punter Chris Kluwe. In the piece, he makes some interesting points about the fragmentation and variance in experience within different esports that he believes would be solved by a comprehensive league. Unfortunately, Kluwe’s article, and the broader implication behind it, is ignorant of some of the factors that currently make esports successful.
The variance of experience is not a problem that could be solved by a comprehensive league. Due to the nature of video game genres, there will always be significant differences between the presentation of the differing competitions conducted in esports. Past efforts to bring together esports in a comprehensive sense such as the World Cyber Games were more akin to Olympic productions than anything resembling a modern professional sports league. If one were to standardize the level of production in esports broadcasts and provide the predictable product Kluwe discusses in his article, they would be sacrificing some of the nuance that attracts fans to esports in the first place.
The individual flair of different organizers is a key component to the success of esports. This is perhaps most visible in the DotA space where organizations like Beyond the Summit and Moonduck Studios are constantly innovating in ways to bring fans a unique broadcast of the game they know and love. BTS is perhaps best known for their series dubbed The Summit, a large, international, crowdfunded tournament series that culminates in a LAN finals held at a mansion in California.
At this event, players are often recruited as broadcast talent, providing a perspective on the games in front of them that is all too rare in esports. It is diversity like this that esports has the potential to move toward, and a unified league would largely eliminate the possibility as the top teams that are necessary to make these events successful are held down to contracts or schedules restricting them from competing in other leagues or tournaments. As of now, the relatively free market is successful in driving forward these sorts of changes, but a more regulated space might not be competitive enough.
It is no stretch to say that fans of esports now like them because they are unique in this way, and that sacrificing this trait would take something away from the entire experience. Fans have a dubious relationship with the idea of professionalism within the scene, with many opposed to the idea that increasing professionalization is necessary. Surely, it would allow esport broadcasts to appeal to a wider audience, but it is at odds with esports’ quirky charm that endears it to many of those that tune in now. At some point, one has to wonder if that sacrifice is a worthy one just to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
It is also questionable to assume that WESA will be able to solve the problems esports faces. After all, sports leagues are not totally devoid of the sorts of controversies that esports wants to avoid. Baseball had a serious gambling problem for quite a while, with the 1919 Black Sox Scandal that tainted the World Series, and Pete Rose’s lifetime ban for betting on his own team. That isn’t even mentioning the ongoing struggle in many high-profile sports with controlling the use of performance-enhancing drugs, an issue esports is just recently beginning to face.
Kennigit:
Ultimately discussion of whether WESA is a good or bad thing should be based on the actions it takes going forward.
Ultimately discussion of whether WESA is a good or bad thing should be based on the actions it takes going forward.
In the end, this is the reality. Much of this article is conjecture. Everything is a possibility. There’s a lot of potential for abuse, and seemingly not much incentive for WESA to act to improve some of the structural problems that exist within esports. Much of the discussion around WESA has been apprehensive at best, and for good reason. History has shown that parties will act largely in their own self-interest, often to the detriment of others. WESA may become part of this problem, or they may be able to provide checks against abuses of power. Either way, only time will tell.
Writer: Yamato
CSS: FO-nTTaX, amazingxkcd
Graphics: DearDave
