Salrite posted...
To me, "Sport" is an athletic competition by definition.
Fortunately, English includes a class of words that, when attached to another word, yield a pairing of words that can mean something different from what the second word on its own would mean. Yay! Adjectives!
The definition of "E-sports" is loosely "sports, but electronic," reflecting that the concept includes the same sort of competition and public spectacle as physical sports, but without the athletic component. It's a perfectly valid term, as much as people like to get hung up on "it's not real sports!"
ooger posted...
Excel is my favorite e-sport.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNWPGhzhdMg
As an unabashed Excel nerd, I was unreasonably pleased to discover that a while ago. I haven't watched any of it, mostly because I kind of want to try the problems sets on my own, but I don't really have anyone to compete with because I'm far and away the leading Excel expert in my circles of friends/coworkers.
ParanoidObsessive posted...
The thing is, just because someone wants something, doesn't mean they deserve that thing.
What does "deserve" have to do with anything? Instead, ask why sports visas are a thing in the first place, and consider whether or not that applies to e-sports in the same way:
To facilitate athletes travelling to competitions? Check.
Because competitions are clearly defined and there's third-party oversight to ensure the athlete doesn't overstay their visit, allowing for a more lenient visa? Check.
Because the people making these decisions have fond memories of playing high school sportsball but haven't touched a video game since 1982 and therefore see more value in physical sports than eSports? That's probably a factor, but not an immutable one and not a particularly valid justification either way.
Because the athlete's participation in the competition will generate tourism money and other forms of economic stimulation? That's the debatable one. The economic value of hosting international physical sports competitions is pretty well-established (at least on the visa scale, since if we get into questions of taxpayer-funded stadiums or everything that happens to prepare for the Olympics, it's another story), but by their nature, eSports competitions don't have to be as large to attract international athletes and interest, and only a relatively small portion of that interested audience watches in-person. That means you generally don't get the same level of economic stimulation from an international eSports competition as from an international physical sports competition, and that would affect the evaluation of whether or not the increased risk associated with a more lenient visa outweighs the economic benefit of bringing in somebody who wouldn't qualify for a more stringent one.
Now, obviously, there are larger eSports competitions whose economic value equals or exceeds that of smaller physical sports competitions, so by this logic, those e-athletes should have at least the same visa experience as those physical athletes. The system as it stands now does not allow for that, simply because eSports aren't recognized. Rather than making it a question of "sports/not sports," the law should be assessing the scale and economic value of the competition in question and making the decision based on that. It's a case of the law simply not keeping up with how the broader field of international competitions have evolved and using "sports" as a proxy for that evaluation under the assumption that sports will make the cut and nothing else will.