You're raising legitimate concerns about esports governance, but I don't think they establish that esports doesn't deserve a place in the Olympics. First, private ownership doesn't make something incompatible with the Olympics. The Olympic system already operates through international federations, private partners, equipment manufacturers, broadcasters and other organizations. The IOC's own rules give recognized international federations responsibility for technical rules, qualifying systems, officials and competition procedures while remaining under IOC authority. � Olympic Library So the relevant question isn't “Does a company own the game?” It's “Can the Olympic system establish rules governing how that game is used in Olympic competition?” That's a solvable governance problem. And there's an even bigger problem with your argument: the IOC itself already decided that esports can belong within the Olympic movement. In 2024, the IOC formally established the Olympic Esports Games. The IOC described the project as building on the Olympic Virtual Series and Olympic Esports Series, and esports had already appeared as medal events at the 2023 Asian Games, where 473 athletes from 30 National Olympic Committees competed. � Cloudinary +1 The fact that the IOC later ended its agreement with Saudi Arabia over hosting the first edition doesn't demonstrate that esports doesn't belong in the Olympics. It demonstrates that the proposed governance/hosting arrangement didn't work and needs to be redesigned. Those are different claims. � Reuters Second, your career-length argument actually cuts both ways. Yes, esports careers can be extremely short. A 2025 longitudinal study of 15,021 players found an average career duration of about 3.4 years, with especially short careers among newer cohorts. � PubMed Central (PMC) +1 But why does that mean esports shouldn't be Olympic? If anything, an Olympic platform could provide greater institutional recognition, standardized competition structures and international legitimacy to athletes competing in an unusually volatile profession. And finally, “Olympism honors embodied human excellence” is an assertion about what the Olympics ought to value, not an established definition that excludes esports. Competitive esports requires measurable human performance: reaction time, precision, strategic reasoning, communication, decision-making under pressure and sustained concentration. The computer is the equipment through which those abilities are expressed; it doesn't perform the decisions for the athlete. Your argument therefore establishes that esports has governance problems and career instability. I agree those are real issues worth solving. But: Esports has governance problems does not entail: Esports does not deserve Olympic recognition. The better question is whether those problems are disqualifying or whether they can be addressed through Olympic regulation. And given that the IOC has already incorporated esports into Olympic initiatives and formally established an Olympic Esports Games, the evidence points toward the latter being at least institutionally possible. � Cloudinary +1 You're arguing that esports isn't perfect enough for the Olympics. I'm arguing that the Olympics has the ability to regulate imperfect sports and create standards for participation. Those are two very different

I think you've actually strengthened my argument by narrowing yours. The proposition is that esports deserves a spot in the Olympics—not that every individual game should be guaranteed permanent Olympic status regardless of what happens to its publisher. Your publisher argument is a real governance concern, but it doesn't establish exclusion. A publisher controlling a game doesn't mean the IOC has to surrender control of the Olympic competition. The Olympic system already works through international federations that have authority over technical rules, qualification, officials, equipment and competition procedures, while remaining subject to IOC requirements. � Olympic Library In fact, the IOC's own Olympic Esports Series demonstrated exactly this model. The 2023 series was created by the IOC in collaboration with international federations and game publishers, including World Archery, the UCI, World Sailing, World Taekwondo and others. � IOC Newsroom So the existence of a publisher doesn't make esports fundamentally incompatible with Olympic governance. It means the IOC has to establish agreements and eligibility standards for the games it includes. And your hypothetical — “Imagine training for years and then a company update ends your Olympic pathway” — is possible, but that's not an argument that esports can't be Olympic. It's an argument for rules addressing publisher dependence. You could require advance notice, standardized competitive versions, contractual guarantees, or even select only games whose publishers agree to Olympic governance requirements. If a particular game becomes unsuitable, the IOC could replace that title without eliminating esports as a category. There's another important distinction: you're arguing about permanence; I'm arguing about inclusion. And the IOC has already demonstrated that it considers esports compatible with the Olympic movement. It created the Olympic Esports Series, held Olympic Esports Week, and subsequently announced the creation of the Olympic Esports Games. � IOC Newsroom +2 Your ethical arguments also don't establish your conclusion. Saying “Olympism honors embodied human excellence” assumes that excellence performed through digital equipment somehow isn't embodied human excellence. But the athlete is still the one making the decisions, controlling the inputs, reacting under pressure, coordinating with teammates and executing the strategy. The computer is the competitive apparatus, just as a bicycle, boat, horse or racing car is equipment through which human performance is expressed. And I wouldn't accept the premise that Olympic legitimacy requires public ownership. The IOC itself is a private, not-for-profit international organization, and the Olympic movement explicitly involves private partners and broadcasters. � Olympics Support +1 So your argument establishes: Publisher control → potential governance problem But you still need to establish: Publisher control → esports should be excluded from the Olympics That doesn't logically follow. If the IOC can establish rules governing publisher participation, then your central objection is a solvable governance problem rather than a reason to exclude an entire category of athletes. And that's especially significant because the IOC has already chosen to pursue Olympic esports rather than treating the two concepts as inherently incompatible.

But I think you're setting a requirement for Olympic sports that you haven't actually established: that the underlying game or competitive apparatus must be permanently independent of private ownership. An Olympic sport doesn't necessarily have to mean one unchanging piece of software exists forever. What matters is whether the Olympic competition can establish stable rules, athlete eligibility, competition standards, and governance for the event being contested. Your “IOC is just renting a sport” analogy assumes that the game title and the sport are necessarily the same thing. That's exactly what I'm disputing. For example, the IOC's own Olympic Esports Series was organized in collaboration with international federations and game publishers. The IOC wasn't simply handing Olympic authority to publishers; it was creating an Olympic competition around selected digital disciplines with the relevant federations and publishers. And the Olympic Charter actually gives international federations responsibility for technical rules, equipment specifications, qualifying systems, judging, officials, and competition procedures. So Olympic sport already involves a governing structure that determines how the competition is conducted. Your argument assumes that because a publisher can change its commercial product, the IOC therefore cannot establish a legitimate competitive framework. That's the step you haven't demonstrated. In fact, your own argument suggests the obvious solution: the IOC doesn't have to promise that one particular game lasts forever. It can establish requirements for Olympic titles and replace a title if its publisher no longer meets those requirements. That's not fundamentally different from saying an Olympic discipline can change its equipment, technical rules, or event structure over time. And there's an important factual point here: the IOC didn't merely “experiment” with esports and walk away. It announced the Olympic Esports Series in 2023, held Olympic Esports Week with live finals, and in 2024 formally established the Olympic Esports Games. The later termination of the IOC's Saudi partnership in 2025 doesn't prove esports is incompatible with the Olympics either. It means that particular partnership ended and the IOC is pursuing another model. There's also a problem with your “public accountability” premise. The IOC itself is a private, not-for-profit international organization, and it openly operates through relationships with international federations, sponsors, broadcasters, and public and private authorities. So private involvement isn't what disqualifies something from being Olympic. Ultimately, your argument establishes: Publisher ownership → potential instability I agree. But you're trying to get from that to: Potential instability → esports cannot legitimately be Olympic And that doesn't follow unless you show that the IOC is incapable of creating a sufficiently stable governance framework around esports. You haven't demonstrated that. The IOC's actual esports programs demonstrate the opposite: publisher involvement and Olympic governance can coexist. So I'd flip your question around: If the IOC can regulate the competition, set eligibility standards, require publisher agreements, and replace individual titles when necessary, why should the existence of a private publisher disqualify the entire category of esports? That's the question your argument still has to answer

I think we're finally at the actual disagreement: you're defining an Olympic sport as something whose underlying competitive product must be permanently stable and independent of private ownership. But you haven't established that this is a requirement of being an Olympic sport. Your argument assumes: Publisher can discontinue/change a game → the sport itself lacks Olympic legitimacy. But that's not necessarily true. The game title can change while the competitive category remains esports. If one title disappears, the IOC doesn't lose the concept of esports any more than changing an individual Olympic event means the entire sport ceases to exist. In fact, Olympic governance already allows sports and events to change. The Olympic Charter gives international federations authority to propose adding or deleting events, establish technical rules, qualification systems, judging, equipment specifications and other competition procedures. � Olympic Library So change itself isn't what makes something “un-Olympic.” The question is whether there is a sufficiently governed competitive framework. And there's a factual problem with saying esports is merely something the IOC is “renting.” The IOC's 2023 Olympic Esports Series was explicitly created by the IOC in collaboration with international federations and game publishers. That included archery, cycling, sailing, taekwondo, tennis and other sports represented through digital competition. � IOC Newsroom That's important because it demonstrates that the IOC can structure an Olympic competition around a privately developed digital platform without surrendering Olympic governance to the publisher. You're also making “public accountability” do a lot of work without establishing why public ownership is necessary. The IOC itself describes the Olympic Movement as involving international federations, national Olympic committees, organizing committees, worldwide Olympic partners and broadcast partners, while also collaborating with public and private authorities. � Olympics Support So the Olympics isn't based on the principle that everything involved must be publicly owned. And here's the biggest problem with your “renting a product” analogy: You're assuming the publisher owns the Olympic sport rather than supplying one competitive platform. The IOC can say: These are the requirements for an esports title to qualify for Olympic competition. If a publisher violates those requirements, that title is removed and another qualifying title can replace it. You call that evidence that esports doesn't belong. I see it as evidence that Olympic governance needs to regulate the relationship between the IOC, athletes, federations and publishers. Those aren't the same conclusion. And this isn't merely hypothetical. The IOC formally established the Olympic Esports Games in 2024, building on the Olympic Virtual Series and Olympic Esports Series. Esports had also already been a medal event at the 2023 Asian Games, with 473 athletes from 30 National Olympic Committees competing across seven titles. � Cloudinary So the IOC's actual behavior is significant here: it has repeatedly treated esports as something that can operate within an Olympic framework. Your argument proves there is dependency on publishers. It does not prove: Publisher dependency → esports cannot be Olympic. That's the missing premise. If your standard is that an Olympic sport must never depend on any privately controlled equipment, technology, organization, or rules that can change, then you'd need to establish that as an actual Olympic requirement—not simply assert it. So I don't think the real question is whether esports is perfectly stable. No sport is completely static. The real question is whether the IOC can create a sufficiently stable and legitimate framework around a changing competitive medium. The IOC's own esports programs show that it can.

The hypothetical about a game shutting down sounds powerful, but it actually exposes the assumption your entire argument depends on: you're treating the specific game as the sport. If a game disappears, that doesn't mean esports disappears. It means that particular title is no longer viable as an Olympic competition. The IOC can select another qualifying title or another form of esports competition. And your claim that every other Olympic medal represents something “durable and publicly owned” simply isn't true. Olympic sports and events have changed repeatedly. The IOC's own Olympic Studies Centre documents sports including cricket, croquet, lacrosse, polo, motorboating, rackets and roque that disappeared from the Olympic programme. The modern Olympic programme also regularly adds and removes sports and events. � Olympic Library In fact, the IOC explicitly allows international federations to propose adding or deleting events, and Olympic rules allow sports to be excluded from the programme under specified circumstances. � Olympic Library +1 So Olympic status has never meant: “This exact competitive format must exist forever.” That's a standard you're imposing on esports that the Olympics itself doesn't impose on other sports. And your “publicly owned” premise is also unsupported. Olympic competition isn't defined by public ownership of the equipment or competitive infrastructure. Equestrian competition, for example, has Olympic rules concerning privately owned horses and their owners. � Olympic Library The important thing is who governs the Olympic competition, not whether every piece of equipment or technology involved is publicly owned. There's also a major problem with saying an esports medal would become meaningless if the game later disappeared. A medal recognizes an athlete's achievement at a particular Olympic competition at a particular point in time. If an Olympic sport gets removed afterward, that doesn't retroactively erase the athlete's medal. We already know Olympic sports can be temporary or edition-specific. For LA28, the IOC approved baseball/softball, cricket, flag football, lacrosse and squash as additional sports for that edition, and several have returned after previously disappearing from the Games. � IOC Newsroom So your argument ultimately reduces to: Esports titles can disappear → esports shouldn't be Olympic. But that doesn't follow. The Olympic system already accommodates sports, events, rules and competitive formats changing over time. And the IOC has gone further than merely “experimenting”: it established the Olympic Esports Games in 2024 after the Olympic Virtual Series and Olympic Esports Series. The 2023 Olympic Esports Series itself was created by the IOC in collaboration with international federations and game publishers. � Cloudinary +1 So the real question isn't whether esports is immortal. No sport or Olympic event is guaranteed immortality. The question is whether esports can be governed well enough to provide legitimate Olympic competition. The IOC has already demonstrated that it can create that framework. You've shown that esports has a unique dependency on publishers. You haven't shown that this dependency makes Olympic recognition illegitimate. And that's why your conclusion still doesn't follow from your premises.