=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2186/paper15
|storemode=property
|title=French esports institutionalization
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2186/paper15.pdf
|volume=Vol-2186
|authors=Samuel Vansyngel,Arthur Velpry,Nicolas Besombes
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/gamifin/VansyngelVB18
}}
==French esports institutionalization==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2186/paper15.pdf
French esports institutionalization
Samuel Vansyngel
Laboratory Experice, Humanity Sciences Faculty, University of Paris 13, France
samuel.vansyngel@gmail.com
Arthur Velpry
Laboratory NIMEC, Marketing department, University of Rouen, France
a.velpry@gmail.com
Nicolas Besombes
Laboratory TEC, Sports Faculty, Paris Descartes University,
France
nicolas.besombes@gmail.com
Abstract:
Electronic sports, more commonly known as "esports", has seens increasing popularity and
media coverage since the early 2010s. The interest of the generalist and specialized media for
this phenomenon goes hand in hand with the recent recognition of esports by the French public
authorities. Indeed, since April 2016, the association France Esports, an entity resulting from
the "Digital Republic" bill, is officially supported by the Ministry of Economy and Finance.
The association has set itself the task of structuring and promoting esports at the national level
by drawing up technical regulations relating to the practice, establishing a membership policy,
setting up rules for the organization of championships or the protection of minors. However,
since the late 1990s, esports French development is independent of any public authority. How
has esports been structured in France over time? What are the supervisory bodies involved in
the organization of the French esports area? Thus, this contribution aims to report on the
structuring of esports in France and its institutionalization.
1. Context: A global enthusiasm for esports?
Promoted as the "future of sport" by the Electronic Sports League (ESL), esports refer to a
“competitive (pro and amateur) video gaming that is often coordinated by different leagues,
ladders and tournaments, and where players customarily belong to teams or other ‘sporting’
organizations who are sponsored by various business organizations” (Hamari & Sjöblom,
2017). Esports seems to become rapidly institutionalized at a national level, in particular by
putting into perspective a large number of attributes similar to those of "modern and traditional
sport".
However, the esports’ recognition as a sport is not without problems. Although esports have
entered a process of institutionalization (Seo, 2013), there are many questions about the
recognition of esports as sports (Jonasson & Thiborg, 2010). Some work then aims at promoting
the integration of esports competitions in the traditional sports sphere (Funk, Pizzo, & Baker,
2017), on the contrary of certain authorities, which seem to express the willingness to turn their
back on this integration, notably ARJEL (Autorité de Régulation des Jeux En Ligne; i.e Online
Gaming Regulatory Authority) and the French Ministry of Sports. This is why it will be very
interesting to analyze the French institutionalization.
GamiFIN Conference 2018, Pori, Finland, May 21-23, 2018 123
2. Literature Review
First, it is important to note that there is little research on the esports’ institutionalization
(Thiborg, 2009; Salice, 2010), particularly that relating to the French case (Besombes &
Vansyngel, 2017; Garcia Bardidia, Nau & Velpry, 2017).
Thus, this state of the art tends to
present the contributions of neo-institutional theory in the analysis of the legitimization process
and structuring of esports in France.
2.1 From institutional theory to neo-institutional theory
According to Suchman (1995), institutions can be defined as the rules of the game that shape
and normalize behavior and distinguish what is legitimate from what is illegitimate. The
literature seems to suggest that institutional theory is proving to be a theoretical framework for
understanding the development, protection and resilience of social structures and institutions
(Humphrey, 2010).
More specifically, it examines the organizational environment and helps to
understand how individual actors, firms and markets achieve or maintain a certain level of
legitimacy (Grayson & al., 2008; Handelman & Arnold, 1999; Humphreys, 2010).
This theory then implies observing and understanding the coordinated efforts of individual
actors who tend to build these social structures. This would help to better understand the
process of legitimizing new consumer practices, such as esports for example. Although the
concept of legitimacy has three facets (Scott, 1995): regulatory, normative and cognitive. Some
researchers (Deephouse & Carter 2005, Ruef & Scott 1998) have expanded past research by
incorporating the legal dimension as the ‘root’ of legitimacy.
The major evolution of neo-institutional theory lies in explaining institutional change through
the recognition of actors, entrepreneurs and consumers, the ability to change institutions and,
subsequently, to initiate a new cycle of stability and continuity (Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010).
Thus, the neo-institutionalist grid would put the dialogue and tensions between the agency and
the structure into perspective.
2.2 Favor the concept of institutional work over that of institutional
entrepreneurship
Beyond the notion of legitimacy, institutional theory highlights two other concepts. The first
refers to the institutional logic (Thornton, 2002, 2004) socially constructed on the basis of
beliefs that individuals, in specific contexts, will give meaning to social reality (Thornton,
2004). The second is institutional entrepreneurship, which underlines that some actors are not
satisfied with certain aspects of the current situation, such as the legitimacy or illegitimacy of
certain consumer practices.
Nevertheless, recent research (Lawrence Suddaby & Leca, 2011) shows that this notion has
undergone some transformations. Indeed, the idea that market superheroes simply want to
change the structure of markets to legitimize and institutionalize them has been widely
contested in favor of the concept of institutional work. Research on institutional
entrepreneurship has tended to focus more on institutions than individuals (Maguire et al.,
2004). This research then systematically highlighted institutional change as an object rather
than an explanation, rather than the experience or motivation of individuals involved in the
legitimization process. Moreover, this research seems to be based on a structural determinism,
GamiFIN Conference 2018, Pori, Finland, May 21-23, 2018 124
reflecting a set of structural characteristics (Maguire et al., 2004) or a vision based on the
particular skills of the agent (Fligstein, 1997).
Lawrence, Suddaby and Leca (2011) suggest focusing on the concept of institutional work
rather than institutional entrepreneurship. In their work, they define institutional work as a
physical or mental effort to affect an institution or set of institutions. In addition to defining the
concept of institutional work, Lawrence, Suddaby and Leca (2011) also suggest that it could
help solve long-standing problems in institutional research.
The concept of institutional work would make it possible to highlight and analyze the complex
relationship between individuals and institutions, in other words, to analyze the relationship
between agency and structure. Second, the concept of institutional work emphasizes the need
to take into account the recursive and permanent dialectical interaction between the
organization and the institution. Third, the concept of institutional work is based on the analysis
of actors’ contextual and reflective practices about the institutions around them, and then give
more intent to the actors. Thus, it suggests neither determinism nor heroism and remains
potentially sensitive, on the one hand, to the oppression of cultural, social and material
structures, and, on the other hand, to the potential for the emancipation of the actors of some
of these structures.
To conclude, it would appear that the institutional work concept is intended to encourage
researchers to take a different view of their research topic and to divert their attention from the
‘organizational field’. This would then make it possible to foster the relationship between the
institutions and the actors that populate it by promoting an approach based on an understanding
of practice and procedures rather than on results. Implementing institutional work would
relocate the agency by diverting attention from the heroic entrepreneur’s dramatic actions to
the small worlds of institutional resistance and maintenance, in which institutionalization and
institutional changes are promulgated in the daily evolution of individuals and groups.
The neo-institutionalist grid and the concept of institutional work seem to favor an
understanding of the mechanisms underlying the institutionalization of esports in France. This
is why, through two field surveys on the respective scenes of Mortal Kombat X and
Hearthstone, we tried to apprehend the institutional crumbling and the dichotomy of the French
esports scene to the prism of neo-institutional theory.
3. Methodology
Our pluridisciplinarity leads us to describe our method as 'mosaic' (Clark, 2005). Indeed, the
use of different field methods allows us to focus on the commitment of esports actors. Thus,
we propose three methods to approach the esports’ institutionalization, namely (Table 1):
- The ethnography of 33 offline videogames tournaments;
- 10 interviews with French actors with different functions within the French
esports ecosystem;
- A corpus composed of legal and parliamentary documents and press articles on
esports.
GamiFIN Conference 2018, Pori, Finland, May 21-23, 2018 125
Table 1. Methods and fields
Semi-directives Corpus and
Observations and ethnographies
interviews documentations
Officials actors’
33 LAN gatherings and
competitions
Laws and
parliament
Associative documentations
(Stunfest, general
assembly of France 10 interviews with
20 Hearthstone Esports…) politics, industrials,
and esports actors
11 MKX
2 Starcraft II
Professionals Press specialized
(E-sport Summit, (interviews and
Dojo E-sport…) datas)
First of all, the ethnographic approach consists of immersing oneself in the esports scene
through practice and to understand as well as possible what ‘doing esports' means. This
immersion in two esports scenes (Mortal Kombat X and Herathstone) allowed, on the one hand,
to highlight the tensions and the stakes of the definition of esports for the actors of this
ecosystem. On the other hand, tournaments and teams’ ethnography show the structure at 'two
speeds' of esports in France (Besombes, 2016). Thus, observations and interviews from these
two ethnography reveal a kind of “institutional fragmentation” (Besombes & Vansyngel, 2017).
The choice of these two esports scenes as research field is mainly due to the appearance of new
video games mobilizing players who create competitive events. Indeed, for both ethnographies,
the researchers were able to participate in the mobilization of their actors and observe their
structuring.
This institutional fragmentation seems to have resulted in the impressive rise in number of
competitions, tournaments and championships – professionals and amateurs. However, this
multiplication seems to obstruct the understanding of competition circuits and their rules, for
the media, the authorities, the public and sometimes even for competitors. Then the interviews
relate the testimonies of the actors involved in the creation of the association France Esports
and the reasons behind the initiative of the Ministry of Finance – which aim is to build a legal
framework. Finally, the corpus analysis was divided into two parts. These two parts deal
respectively with what was voted by the government in 2016 and how the esports is treated in
the newspaper Le Monde. The analysis of the press articles highlights three distinct periods
during which the media discourse evolves and testifies to the appeal of the development of
video game competitions as a market.
From these three methods, we analyze the results of prisms from our three scientific
perspectives – sports science, sociology and marketing. We develop an interdisciplinary vision
of issues related to the esports' institutionalization in France, with a view to objectifying the
ongoing institutionalization process. Therefore, we believe that this attempt at cross-analysis
between methodologies from the sports, marketing and sociological spheres puts into
perspective a multidimensional interpretation of the esports’ acknowledgement. Our objective
is to analyze the recognition of esports by the French government and to understand the
mobilization of stakeholders by developing a 'competitive gaming industry' (France 24, 2017).
GamiFIN Conference 2018, Pori, Finland, May 21-23, 2018 126
4. Case study: singularity of French institutionalization
In France, the esports’ institutionalization raises a lot of questions as to the nature of this
practice, but also questions relating to its governance. Indeed, the boundaries between
‘traditional sport’ and ‘electronic sports’ are not clearly delimited (Besombes, Joncheray &
Richard, 2015). While the French Ministry of Sports does not wish to recognize esports as a
sport, the French public authorities seem to contribute to its recognition and professionalization.
Indeed, the unprecedented gathering of three major actors in the sector (publishers, players,
promoters) organized by the association France Esports had helped promote actors’ dialogue
with public authorities. Thus, the professionalization of competitive video games practice was
envisaged by the legislator through two decrees:
- Decree n°2017-871 of 9 May 2017 on the organization of video game competitions,
supervised by the Ministry of the Interior;
- Decree n°2017-872 of 9 May 2017 on the status of salaried professional players of
competitive video games, supervised by the Labour Ministry.
The latter aims respectively to set financial equilibrium thresholds and ratios that a video game
competition must comply with, the procedures for reporting video game competitions to the
central races and games department and the conditions for participation by minors in video
game competitions. They also define the conditions for obtaining the required accreditation for
the employment of professional video game players, the conditions under which a contract may
be concluded during the season, and establish detailed rules for determining the start and end
dates of video game competition seasons. The legislator then provides a new legal framework
which aims, on the one hand, to encourage the organizers of competitions which were
previously prohibited by ARJEL, and, on the other hand, to provide a status adapted to the
esports’ specificities.
Table 2. The “two speed” world of French esports scenes.
Hearthstone and Mortal Kombat X examples.
Associative teams Professional teams
Media Coverage Weak High
Amateur Professional & Invitational
Participate at
Competitions Competitions
Local, regional or national International
Type of event
Tournaments Tournaments
Private
Who organized competitions? Communities Associations Game Publishers
Companies
Kayane session Stunfest
EVO (Shoryuken) Fatal 8 Exhibition
(Kayane) (3 Hit Combo)
Examples for MKX MKX Pro League (Warner)
Born 2 Fight Armor Break
(ESL) MK Cup (Warner)
(YUZU Clan) (GameLine)
Hearthstone
World
Mad Cup (Mad ArmaCup
INSALAN (Insa) Championship
Corps) (ArmaTeam)
Examples for Hearthstone GA (Blizzard)
Wanna War GOCS (Gamers
(Futurolan) Hearthstone
(Wannawar) Origin)
Global Games
(Blizzard)
GamiFIN Conference 2018, Pori, Finland, May 21-23, 2018 127
However, as we see in Table 2, there are two facets of esports practice: (i) associative practice
and (ii) professional practice. Two distinct models seem to coexist, whether for organizing
events or managing teams. On the one hand, we observe an associative model, where the
practice of amateurs is dominant, supported by many communities, associations of local and
national players specialized in online esports events. On the other hand, there is an
entrepreneurial model, mainly international, much more spectacular and widespread than the
first practice model, and which favors the elite of professional players.
From now on, the French government and private actors (two large associations and eight
professional founders of France Esports) have set up a normative and legal framework which
has imposed a normative way of practicing esports, thus contributing to its institutionalization.
The creation of the France Esports association brought together fragments of the French esports
scene, while its affiliation with the Ministry of Economy seems to mark a break with the two
pre-existing sports models. This collaboration transforms esports by imposing its
institutionalization on the political agenda. In one year of existence, the "groupement d’intérêt
économique" (i.e economic interest group) has become an "association", open to all esports
enthusiasts in France and promotes dialogue between the esports’ actors and the French
authorities.
Despite this democratic act of the founding members, questions arise as to the divergent
interests between the political sphere, non-profit organizations and professional actors. The
public recognition of esports in France can then be seen as the desire to consider esports more
as an industry rather than a sport. An interest that converges with that of industrialists outside
the esports sphere (Red Bull, McDonald’s, Coca Cola…) or that of the "traditional media" (such
as television channels): since it is indeed a young practice of "young man users and spectators
are easy to target for who wants to get involved in esports" – said a man representing a banking
group at the Esports Summit 2017 in Paris. If the traditional sports model can be adapted to
esports practice, the logic of the French actors seems to favor the development of an industry.
As a result, certain players and associative actors seem to have been disavowed by the Ministry
of Sports, even if today three ministries (economy and finance; internal affairs; and labour)
supervise the esports’ institutionalization.
The esports’ institutionalization in France raised a lot of political (organizational model),
economic (industry growth) and social (educational and professional training, monitoring of
players) issues. This is why the government wishes to establish a legal framework for the
players, whereas the actors of the sports scene and its industry rather wish economic support of
their activity and their development. For companies outside the sphere of esports, the objective
is clearly to (re)conquer young consumers, whereas for esportives, the main challenge is to
legitimize a way of living and practicing a common passion in everyday life - a task in which
they do not seem to be invested.
Conclusion
While France participates in a worldwide movement of recognition of esports by the public
authorities and thus of "sportivisation" (Bordes, 2008) of competitive video games, the lack of
interest of the French Ministry of Sports distinguishes it from the South Korean "sportification"
process (Parlebas, 1986), which highlights cultural differences. Unlike the French
institutionalization, the South Korean government is concerned with the development of esports
and has created an entity specific to esports, the Korea e-Sports Association (KeSPA) since
2000.
GamiFIN Conference 2018, Pori, Finland, May 21-23, 2018 128
If the current results tend to show that institutional legitimation by the traditional sports sphere
seems blocked in favor of the development of economic activities. However, the apprehension
and analysis of the institutional work under way on the French scene point to the emergence of
new prospects, as evidenced by recent investments in esports by professional clubs, notably
football clubs such as Paris Saint-Germain and Olympique Lyonnais. The discussions initiated
with sports authorities such as the International Olympic Committee at the international level,
seem to mark the beginning of the recognition of activity by the modern sports world despite
the partial disinterest of the French sports authorities.
As we underline in this presentation, the esports’ recognition by the public authorities, wanted
by the prime actors of France Esports in 2015 tends to mark the establishment of a market and
an industry. The French example of the esports’ recognition does not allow action and
consultation on other works than the construction of its market. This overlooks then what
concerns the body and health of the players, the learning of the esports profession, or the
integration of esports in school and university training. This is what the recognition of esports
as a sport allows; for example, in Geneva, at the end of a school day, children will be able to
try their hand at esports from September 2018 through extracurricular activities.
References
Besombes N, Joncheray H. & Richard R. (2015). Electronic Sport, at the borders of modern sport?
International Congress North American Society for the Sociology of Sport (NASSS), Borderlands,
Santa Fe, November 2015.
Besombes N. (2016). Sport électronique, agressivité mortice et sociabilités (doctoral dissertation),
Paris Descartes University, Paris.
Besombes N. & Vansyngel S. (2017). L'émiettement institutionnel de l'e-sport en France : une
reconnaissance des pouvoirs publics malgré le désengagement du ministère des Sports. Congress of
the Association Française de Sociologie (AFS), Sport et Pouvoir (RT 31), Université de Picardie Jules
Verne, Amiens, 3-6 juillet 2017.
Bordes P. (2008). Que peut-on entendre par “Sportivisation” de l’Education Physique ?” In E. Dugas
(dir), Jeu, sport et éducation physique (pp. 21-28). Montpellier. AFRAPS
Deephouse D. L., & Carter, S. M. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational
legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of management Studies, 42(2), 329-360.
Fligstein N. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory. American behavioral scientist, 40(4)
Funk D. C., Pizzo A. D., & Baker B. J. (2017). eSport management: Embracing eSport education and
research opportunities. Sport Management Review.
Garcia-Bardidia R., Nau J. P. & Velpry A. (2017) l’institutionnalisation du e-sport : quels enjeux pour
la consummation du jeu video in Rabu, G. Les enjeux juridiques de l'e-sport. Presses Universitaires
d'Aix-Marseille.
Handelman J. M., & Arnold S. J. (1999). The role of marketing actions with a social dimension:
Appeals to the institutional environment. The Journal of Marketing, 33-48.
Humphreys A. & Grayson K. (2008) The Intersecting Roles of Consumer and Producer: A Critical
Perspective on Co-production, Co-creation and Prosumption. Sociology Compass 2(3): 963–980.
Humphreys A. (2010), Semiotic structure and the legitimation of consumption practices: the case of
casino gambling, Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 3, 490-510.
Jonasson K., & Thiborg J. (2010). Electronic sport and its impact on future sport. Sport in Society,
13(2), 287-299.
GamiFIN Conference 2018, Pori, Finland, May 21-23, 2018 129
Lawrence T., Suddaby R., & Leca B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of
organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52-58.
Maguire S., Hardy C., & Lawrence T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields:
HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of management journal, 47(5), 657-679.
Parlebas P. (1986). Eléments de sociologie du sport. Paris: PUF
Ruef M., & Scott W. R. (1998). A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: Hospital
survival in changing institutional environments. Administrative science quarterly, 877-904.
Scott W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Seo Y. (2013) Electronic sports: A new marketing landscape of the experience economy. Journal of
Marketing Management 29(13–14): 1542–1560
Suchman M.C. (1995) Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. The Academy of
Management Review 20(3): 571–610.
Thornton P. H. (2002). The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in
institutional logics. Academy of management journal, 45(1), 81-101.
Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in
higher education publishing. Stanford University Press
Zietsma C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2010). Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational
field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2),
189-221. 13(2), 287-299.
GamiFIN Conference 2018, Pori, Finland, May 21-23, 2018 130