The Inquisition: "A Governing Body"
By Staff Writer - CEVO|Divito

I hope to make "The Inquisition" a series of articles taking a logical look at various ideas and setups in eSports as I see it.

I got the urge to actually sit and write this specific article after seeing a post on ESEA regarding a "United Nations" for eSports. Besides the fact that calling it "United Nations" is incorrect, it'll serve as a face for most of the people that don't really know how the UN operates. I will attempt to look at the plausibility of such an organization and what it could do for or to hurt eSports.

The first issue to address with any sort of "United Nations" organization in eSports would be to identify a purpose for such an association. And to have a purpose, we should need a problem and looking down the line, we cannot see many. Purposes however, can also be in the form of efficiency attempts. Again, looking through the past and how eSports organizations are currently running, a governing body could do very little in the way of making them efficient.

Personally, I don't like the idea of a "United Nations" for eSports, nor do I think it would be effective enough to even bother trying to setup. Why? There just aren't overly apparent problems that would require a governing body over eSports organizations. We can however, at least identify some aspects that can be utilized or that may sound promising.

Factor 1: Games

CS: Source. It can be said, the majority of the competitive CS community does not like it. What happens when things aren't liked? They get scrapped, discontinued, destroyed, eliminated or whatever you wish to call it.

So why did we keep having to show companies and organizations we won't budge? Not entirely sure to be honest. I.d truthfully like to think the people running the companies and organizations know something about the community they support, but apparently not. We've heard all the talk of organizations and sponsors pushing it for sales reasons, exposure of other products, but all that aside, the companies and organizations need to get a clue and fast. We don't roll over at their request and need to continue to stand firm over our volitions. That may seem harsh in a few minds, but if we are to look at a governing body, we have to look at these situations.

This brings us to the first point a governing body could factor over: the games to be supported and discarded from event to event, making them all identical. This will create less boycotting and less of a turn off from spectators.

When we reached the ESWC vs. CPL conflict, there was widespread opinion of the real competition contending at ESWC, leaving a diluted CPL attendee list. While I completely agree with this opinion, the aforementioned boycotting among spectators made it clear that fans follow the talent and you cannot expand with these divisions of opinion. Sure, maybe I.m over exaggerating a tad, but this small mistake cost what could arguably be growth among our community.

Looking further past this, perhaps policies can be developed where an organization can support specific games to their self-interest, but keep it more or less the same across the board. This can give some individuality to some competitions but make an unbiased nature towards the participants and spectators alike that are driving these tournaments in the first place.

What can this open up? Well, participants having sufficient sponsors and who are able to take themselves around from event to event will not have to worry about an organization shutting out a game they play in the future and will also lead to less profitable games to be removed, with the intent on attracting sponsors to step up to the plate with more money for the current and popular games.

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but the bottom line is that, having this organization mandate the institution of certain games and the discard of others, we can focus sponsor relations on specific and popular games to not only to satisfy the community members, but also expand the monetary issue involved as a whole.

Factor 2: Scheduling

No one likes scheduling issues, be it event-to-event, schooling conflicts, etc. A governing body could be a good shot at scheduling a sufficient slot for each major event over the year to give sponsors a good taste of an overall timeline, projected attendance and what have you. Paying attention to university exam dates and schedules in their respective areas can also help greatly for tournaments.

Being in contact and on a general level with all participants is the best route to achieving a balance for everyone involved, because it will make certain of potential attendees, possible spectator numbers and these become simple facts and numbers to submit to sponsors who ultimately want this information and who are sponsoring events because of it.

At this point, we are merely jotting ideas down, and we also have to think professionally. If we are to have this "UN" we need to look at several possibilities and knowing your American or European tournament will coincide around the time of certain exams, it helps to know that information and understand the player.s needs that will be attending the event.

The last thing an organization needs to see is placing a tournament that takes place during the exams and taking out a few top participants from attending, which ultimately will hurt your spectator numbers and in turn will have your sponsors holding you responsible. Not to mention the possibility of hurting the overall competition and in-game test for the other participants in attendance.

Now some of you also may be thinking, "well the CPL and ESWC can do this themselves." And right you are. Like I said earlier, we are jotting down ideas, and most of the currently established organizations are out for their personal expansion and profit, but as an overseeing body, this is still an area that can be explored.

On a side note, what I simply want to mention is related somewhat to scheduling, but more so for online. Dedication is a huge factor in any eSports progression. While Bootman recently talked about the myth of time management issues, teams are still not being serious at the professional level. Whether fans accept the legitimacy of them being called professional is irrelevant.

When companies are looking to sponsor, they are looking to our audience, because we are the group with the most disposable income and have generally, less other priorities. Thus, we are an ideal market, however the instability of teams and players being able to simply stick to a one. two hour timeframe a week for a match to be properly covered over the internet does not show something organized as far as eSports is concerned, nor worth investing in.

You can argue all you want with that reality, but you won.t get very far. And yes, I'm very well aware teams can have priorities like school or urgent family issues, but other then that, saying "I don't want to play" because the ideal five are not available or simply because you.re tired is no excuse.

Dedication needs to be solid if players want to be able to compete for money. The notion of "eSports isn't worth my time because there is no money" is ridiculous. They (the companies) are the ones with the money, and they are the ones making the rules and important decisions. If you don't change your attitude, they won't either.

Factor 3: Universality

The prospect of a governing body can also bring about a union of sorts. Uniting the organizations behind running events is essentially the main point of a "governing" body. Universalizing rules, maps and structures while intriguing are the same time a negative aspect, taking away from the uniqueness from event to event.

However, universality does pose some positive aspects, such as statistical analysis and developing a formula to rank the teams that participate under the union of organizations. While a formula could be made right now, there isn.t really a sufficient one that takes in other certain factors and is not as mathematical as it could be.

A governing body that gets organizations to their mandates could also secure more sponsors or entice more, providing a unifying body for all sponsors to come together and contribute through every tournament. What this means is that in essence, the companies would in turn be sponsoring the governing body provided they (the organizations) enroll.

The biggest issue with such a universal notion is the fact that profit and sheer egos will not look at expanding the sport and will attempt to continue to go their own way. This underlying assumption throws this very idea out the window and it is hard to go past this point.

Factor 4: Who?

Sure, we can look at what can be tampered with, but who can or would be knowledgeable or worthy of having such a power if even attempted? Obviously the biggest names in eSports who have contributed the most to CS and even eSports alone would be a few big names: Trevor Schmidt, Craig Levine, Charlie Plitt, Jason Lake, Angel Munoz, and Andreas Thorstensson.

Off the bat, this list is recognizable but also pertains to mainly one game or organization. However, this is irrelevant. While other games are contained within eSports, these men are certainly not stupid and employ some of the smartest and knowledgeable people within games other than Counter-Strike. Their business sense, and overall outlook upon eSports make them some of the best choices for an ideal group.

Conclusion

It is hard to call this much of a conclusion when we can only look at so few ideas while trying to keep you, the reader, intrigued. Nevertheless, the underlying aspect in all of this, as stated in factor 3, is that for any effective implementation, all organizations will have to prescribe and be at the mercy of the governing council.

What does that say about the proposed notion of setting up a governing body for eSports? It chiefly implies that it.s implausible and will be extremely difficult to get off the ground. Each business/organization currently involved in eSports, as mentioned before, are out for their individual gain, profit and expansion and will not submit to such an idea that will collectively diminish their potential.

I hope you enjoyed the article. Looking towards the future, I'm looking for more ideas and would like the community to help me out. Simply e-mail me at

Comments and Discussion Click HERE