Cem Abanazir

Official documents, such as the Word Anti-Doping Code (WADC), argue that sport can be deemed a homogenous and unitary concept. Even where different sports have varying characteristics, the homogenous view of a given sport ('a sport' or 'the sport') persists. The WADC, international and national sport associations aim to protect the spirit of (the) sport. In this picture, the intersection of sporting integrity and legal processes occupies a vital place. The article will posit that, from a legal perspective sport is heterogeneous due to its governance, regulation, adjudication, and enforcement structures. International and national associations, such as sport federations and leagues, have separate normative orders. These normative orders lead to differences in ensuring sporting integrity. A plural normative environment is inherent in sport; thus, we need to deal with it. The article will conclude that although harmonising norms and interpretations related to sporting integrity through national and global institutions may be acceptable, these must be achieved by promoting good governance and human rights.

Esports' rise in popularity has lead the Olympic Movement (OM) to consider esports as a possible addition to the Olympic programme. A positive stance on the part of the OM towards certain aspects of esports has become apparent in recent years. However, the OM has expressly stated that while it is values-based, the esports industry is commercially driven. This article aims to take a tenable step towards the conceptualisation of the relationship between esports and 'values'. Moreover, it weighs esports' potential addition to the Olympic programme in view of the commercialisation of the Olympic Games whilst also exploring the selection process for adding new sports to the programme. The article concludes that despite the OM's negativity concerning the supposed lack of values in the esports industry, it ignores the commercialisation of the Olympic Games at its hands. Accordingly, it will further assert that esports will possibly become a part of the Olympic programme in the near future.

Following its economic impact and rising popularity, ‘e-sports’ has become a theme within the academic debate on sports. The current discussion revolves around the definitions of sports provided by the philosophy and sociology of sports and how in turn, this can be adapted to e-sports. The premise of this article is the analysis of ‘institutionalisation,’ which is claimed to be an element of modern sport. The governance and production aspects of e-sports will be the main focus where the nature of video games with their fractured production process, the lack of a monopolistic international organisation and its relative novelty will be emphasised. Furthermore, the shaky ground on which the term ‘institutionalisation’ stands will be touched on. It will conclude that the current debate on the recognition of e-sports as a sport may experience certain pitfalls if it does not solve the fundamental problems regarding institutionalisation and ignores the production process of video games and e-sports.

The change that e-sport is going through and the ever-ascending trajectory of e-sport has led to certain states to regulate this mode of entertainment. States like South Korea and China have taken one-step further and recognised e-sport as sport. This article deals with the question of recognition of e-sport by the European Union as sport. In that, characteristics of e-sport vis-à-vis mainstream sports will be analysed alongside the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The physical element and social function of sport which have come to the forefront in case law and academic debates are  relevant to the question of e-sport’s status as a sport. Moving on from that premise, the article will conclude that while e-sport may satisfy the physical element in certain play modes, its currently weak social function would render it as just an economic activity in the eyes of the European Union. Nevertheless, particularities of e-sport due to its virtual element, intellectual property-based means of production and diversified means of playing should be taken into account when the time comes for a definite judgement on e-sport’s status as sport.

This powerful new book looks at how private institutions governing and organising sport restrict political expression. Uniquely, it makes a case for the freedom of expression for athletes, spectators and audiences built upon philosophical foundations. In the era of Colin Kaepernick and taking-a-knee, politics and protest in sport have never been more visible and immediate. Drawing on a wide range of international cases, including protest actions from athletes such as Tommie Smith and John Carlos, Naomi Osaka and Feyisa Lilesa, as well the reactions from sport organisations including the IOC, FIFA, UEFA and the NFL, th argues that the organisation of sport at the hands of associations and leagues, and their transnational power to regulate, adjudicate and enforce matters according to their interests, leads to the restriction of freedom of expression. Focusing on the individual, th presents a framework for the defence of freedom of expression in sport on moral grounds, and also explores the limits to freedom of expression, especially those arising from hate speech, that might better serve both the individual and sport as an institution. This book is fascinating reading for anybody with an interest in the ethics, philosophy or politics of sport,sport governance, the relationship between sport and wider society, or moral or political philosophy