Esports integrity: taming the wild west

This coming weekend League of Legends fans everywhere will tune into the final of this year’s World Championships. Damwon Kia, who have dropped only two games in the tournament so far, will face the LPL Summer Split champions, Edward Gaming. Yet despite the excitement that is now in the air, the opening of the tournament was partially overshadowed by the suspension of Beyond Gaming’s midlaner Chien “Maoan” Mao-An.  Mao-An’s expulsion from the competition – which left his team without a key player – was imposed by the game’s publisher, Riot, for leaking information about his team’s draft picks, which gave the recipients an advantage when betting on games.

Last year, the Electronic Sports League (“ESL”) and the Esports Integrity Commission (“ESIC”) issued a 7-month ESL competition ban (subsequently reduced to 2 months) to Emil “emeilshe1n” Mamedov. Mamedov had been caught in the act of ‘stream sniping’ – viewing the public broadcast of a match he was playing in (and thereby gaining a tactical advantage) during a high profile Counterstrike: Global Offensive (“CS:GO”) tournament. In January, Vitality’s a CS:GO team were fined USD 10,000 for the same offence. Although there was no suggestion Vitality players had deliberately viewed a stream or gained a competitive advantage, a fine was imposed due to there being a television screen with the game playing on it in a room adjacent to that in which the Vitality players were competing.

Issues with doping and match fixing also loom large in esports. In 2015, Kory “Semphis” Friesen, a former member of Cloud9 (arguably the largest esports organization in the world) admitted that the entire CS:GO team had been taking Adderall during the finals of a professional tournament. A similar allegation was made by former Call of Duty World Champion Adam “KiLLa” Sloss about the problems with Adderall use by esports pros. In 2019, ESIC aided Australian police in an investigation which led to the arrest of 6 individuals for charges relating to esports match fixing.

 

The structural issue

It is plain that esports are susceptible to integrity issues.  However, unlike in traditional sport, there are no real governance structures in place to manage it. Numerous institutions have tried to take up the mantle of being something akin to a centralized governing body for integrity issues. Of those competing for the title, ESIC is by far the most prominent contender.

Yet regulating esports is not a simple task, and by far the biggest barrier is structural. In traditional sport, no-one ‘owns’ the game being played. The NBA has no more say over what happens in your pick-up basketball game than FIFA does over a kickabout in your local park. Esports are a different beast. Valve owns the Intellectual Property (IP) rights to CS:GO and DOTA2. Riot owns League of Legends and its new shooter, Valorant. Ownership of that IP gives publishers an absolute and final say over what people do in their games and makes it difficult for any third party to come in and impose additional rules.

The attitude of publishers to integrity issues can vary wildly, from ambivalent to heavy handed, and frequently resulting in a huge disparity of treatment from case to case. Although third-party tournament organisers such as ESL have integrated ESIC’s rules and standardized approach into their competition rules, no publisher run competition has yet to follow suit. The result is a regulatory landscape that is fractured and challenging for players and coaches to navigate.

 

Winds of change

The esports community is by no means apathetic when it comes to making their views known online, yet there is no universal call to punish cheating with meaningful sanctions.

Following the lifetime ban of the content creator Jarvis “FaZe Jarvis” Kaye from playing Fortnite after his use of an aimbot cheat, the hashtag #FreeJarvis was all over twitter. Whilst Kaye is an influencer rather than a professional player, the resistance from fans to heavy policing of such issues is likely to inform how much time publishers are willing to spend on them in future.

Yet even if bans and other sanctions receive a mixed reception from existing fans, it is difficult to imagine household audiences tolerating overt cheating in the same way. COVID-19 has undoubtedly accelerated the progress of esports towards becoming a mainstream phenomenon, and with that success will come increased scrutiny.

Non-endemic sponsors are also likely to have limited tolerance for cheating and other integrity issues that might cause reputational damage to their brand. Proper regulation by publishers would give sponsors a level of security from that risk, and may well help unlock the full commercial potential of esports.

State regulation may also end up forcing the hands of game publishers. In both China and South Korea governments have introduced laws to limit the amount of time young people can spend playing video games. Unless publishers step up to the plate, issues around integrity and player welfare may be taken out of their hands.

Bodies such as ESIC will undoubtedly have a part to play in promoting measures to safeguard competitive integrity. However, whilst ESIC has a rapidly growing number of members and supporters, and has implemented an anti-doping programme that appears to have been an effective deterrent from Adderall use, the fact that it is a voluntary regulator will always restrict its reach and influence.

 

Safeguarding the future

Irrespective of who is responsible for the regulation of esports in future, there is no denying that the absence of education and safeguards can lead to very real harm to individuals. In 2014 League of Legends player Cheon “Promise” Min-Ki attempted suicide after becoming embroiled in a match fixing scandal.  

Incidents like those with Mamedov are also undoubtedly a canary in the mineshaft for deeper unaddressed issues of player welfare and the pressures that are placed upon them. Last year saw the (albeit temporary) retirement of one of the world’s biggest League of Legends players, Uzi, who stopped playing citing the detrimental effects that the professional esports had on his health.

Alongside the damage it causes to individuals, integrity scandals represent a very serious existential threat to the esports industry itself. When people play a game and are on the receiving end of cheating, there is a risk that they will turn to other games. In a 2019 survey by the Esports Observer, 68% of industry professionals felt that cheating and match fixing posed a significant threat to the legitimacy and growth of esports.

It is perhaps stating the obvious, but the essential first steps in dealing with these sorts of issues must be for esports organisations to take up the mantle of educating their players and coaches, and introducing meaningful safeguarding measures aimed at protecting their wellbeing.

Some of the bigger organisations, such as Fnatic, have already taken steps in that direction. However, if Kaye, a member of an organisation purportedly worth USD 305 million, can claim to be unaware of the potential to receive a lifetime ban for cheating, clearly he has been badly let down by those who should have been looking out for his interests. It is to be hoped that, going forward, sufficient safeguards are put in place and players are properly educated to avoid others making similar mistakes.

 

Authored by

Nick Williams
Barrister

Julia Cwierz
Paralegal