CAS FOR ESPORTS: REALITY OR UTOPIA?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/lexsportiva/2023.1.4Keywords:
e-sports, jurisdiction, arbitration, Court of Arbitration for Sport, video games, video game specialists, commercial arbitration.Abstract
The authors examine the peculiarities of dispute resolution in esports and the current state of reforms. The author analyzes the factors influencing the choice of jurisdiction for consideration of disputes in the field of esports in the absence of clear rules for determining the jurisdiction and category of disputes in the field of esports. Attention is drawn to the possible options for jurisdiction in the field of esports. The author notes the peculiarities of dispute resolution within the framework of litigation, commercial arbitration, sports arbitration court and special arbitration bodies or persons authorized to consider disputes and their legal regulation. The author describes the advantages and disadvantages of the existing arbitration bodies and focuses on the mechanisms that have the potential to improve dispute resolution in the esports industry. Given the practice of dispute resolution, it is summarized that arbitration and which institutions are currently the main places for dispute resolution in the field of esports. It is concluded that due to the increasing inclusion of virtual sports (video games) in the category of sports, they should have the same protection regime, and therefore, the resolution of disputes related to them should fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Therefore, the Court of Arbitration for Sport may potentially serve as the final court of appeal for any sports organization, if provided for in its regulations. At the same time, it is currently problematic that the Court of Arbitration for Sport has not yet recognised esports as a legitimate sport and has therefore not yet made any arbitral awards in cybersport disputes. This is the basis for the creation of a specialized court that would be able to consider a wide range of technical disputes related to video games. However, the author substantiates why the creation of a new institution is less effective than reforming the existing Court of Arbitration for Sport.
References
Esports is the fastest-growing sport in the world (2023) https://iesf.org/about/what-we-do
IOC to form ‘two-speed’ esports strategy (2019) Sport Business. https://www.sportbusiness.com/news/ioc-to-formtwo- speed-esports-strategy/
Sumpiputtanadacha T., Murphy A. (2023) Esports and arbitration. Watson Farley & Williams. https://www.wfw.com/ articles/esports-and-arbitration/
Schembri M. (2022) MESA’s Reaction to the European Parliament Resolution on Esports and Video Games. Malta esports assotiation. https://esports.org.mt/mesas-reaction-to-the-european-parliament-resolution-on-esports-and-video-games/
Łukomski J. (2020) Esports is in a dire need of arbitration court - here’s why. Łukomski Niklewicz Adwokacka Spółka Partnerska. https://lukomski-niklewicz.pl/esports-is-in-a-dire-need-of-arbitration-court-heres-why/
ESports Disputes: Choosing your battleground (2018) Bird&Bird. https://www.twobirds.com/insights/2018/global/ esports-disputes-choosing-your-battleground
Dingli R. (2022) Court of Arbitration for Sports. Sport desk. https://sportsdesk.com.mt/2022/04/17/court-of-arbitrationfor- sports/
