Fair Play Principle in Esports

ABSTRACT

The aim of the article is the analysis of the principle of fair play which co-creates an axiological basis of contemporary sport as well as its basic moral category. The constituents of fair play are, first of all, responsibility and justice. Both values are central values, connected with each other, and also closely connected with other values inscribed in fair play, e.g. respect, solidarity, care or honesty. The conducted analysis shows that the rules of fair play connected with formal responsibility and justice, i.e. following the rules and caring for the integrity of sport, are constituent for both sport and esports, whereas the rules of fair play connected with acting responsibly, i.e. respect and avoiding victory at all costs, are hard to realise in esports. It results from the fact that contact between the players is digitally mediated. Hence, apart from gestures and verbal communication, display of respect towards a player during a game is impeded, as is still more a spontaneous reaction to his or her being hurt. Also, avoiding winning at all costs is impeded in esports, as activities directed at obtaining victory are built into the content of the game and therefore should be carried out in accordance with the regulations, from the technical and tactical side and according to the possessed skills. However, it is possible to stop the game when the connection with the other player is suddenly interrupted. From a fair-play perspective also the content of some games employed in esports is questionable, as it assumes contesting moral rules, which in turn is at variance with the realisation of integrative, educational and formative functions of esports in society.

KEYWORDS:

• Sport
• esports
• fair play
• responsibility
• justice

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. As far as sporting values are concerned, there is no significant difference between sport and esports. Both types of sport, generally speaking, are about competing in accordance with the rules of the game (agon) and about victory. In both types of sport, the place of sporting competition is a formally prepared arena in the physical world (a stadium, a swimming pool, a cycling track, etc.) or in the digital environment (the universe of the game). Contestants compete with others (directly or indirectly) or with themselves, and want to win that competition, e.g. by contesting the previous result.

2. For example, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is an organisation who takes care of sport being an integrating factor for society. As a result, the IOC can ban a country from taking part in the Olympic Games, among other reasons, for breaking ethical norms and discrimination, as well as breaking human rights (Chappelet and Kübler-Mabbott 2008). For that reason, in 1948 Germany and Japan were excluded from the Olympic Games (for war crimes during World War II), in 1962 the Republic of South Africa was excluded (for apartheid policy, which was a system of institutional racial discrimination), in 2000 Afghanistan (infringements on human rights and discrimination of women under Taliban regime), and in 2018 Russia was excluded (regular infringements on anti-doping rules, which is a clear incidence of breaking ethical rules).

3. The ontic status of an esports player was exceptionally originally presented by Kalle Jonasson in his article. While analysing a relationship between spectators and gladiators who were fighting in the arena of the ancient Colosseum, he drew a conclusion that gladiators as players did not have an influence on the final result of competition, as the final decision was taken by spectators by raising or lowering the thumb (Pollice Verso). He claims that a similar situation happens in esports, where a contestant is simultaneously a player and a spectator. The player in the universe of the game is the representation of the contestant (an avatar) which however does not have an influence on the result of the game, for which the spectator, i.e. the contestant operating a console, is responsible. The ontic status of a contestant is therefore dual. A contestant through the representation of their person (an avatar) is at the same time a player within the universe of the game and a spectator observing that universe from the outside (Jonasson 2016). Nevertheless, from a moral point of view the crucial thing is the fact that an avatar cannot take their own decisions as it does not have a free will. Gladiators, on the other hand, had will and hence from an ontological point of view were capable of taking autonomous decisions, even if in reality that had no significance for their fate. Gladiators therefore were capable of acting morally (iv) (e.g. disagree with spectators’ decisions) which cannot be said of avatars.

4. Obviously, the history of sport is deeply rooted in art and practice of conducting a war, e.g. in ancient Greece the Olympic Games aimed not only at selecting the strongest and fittest contestants, but also at the preparation of young men for military service and taking part in a war. Similar goals were realised by gladiator fights in ancient Rome or knight tournaments in Medieval Europe (Connor 2011; Reid 2011). However, sport evolved in time and started to dissociate from the culture and art of conducting a war, taking on a form of peaceful recreation and competition. For that reason, the moral basis of modern sport is the principle of fair play which, among others, opposes the acts of violence, discrimination and racist behaviours in broadly understood sports environment.

5. Although the rules in modern sports are designed to ensure fair competition and adherence to the principle of fair play, certain regulations or loopholes can lead to situations where players are inclined to cheat or manipulate to gain an advantage. For example, in soccer, players may simulate a foul to earn a free kick, a penalty or to get an opponent penalized with a card. The rules regarding penalties for fouls are not always effective in eliminating such behavior. Nevertheless, the intention of modern sports regulations is not to permit dishonest behavior, which can, however, arise due to the immoral attitudes of the players.

6. It happens in some countries that state institutions are used to legalise fraud. Such a situation took place, among others, in Russian Federation during the 2014 Olympic Games in Sochi, when the Moscow Anti-doping Laboratory manipulated the results of Russian sportspeople. After detection of this state-supported practice, 25 contestants were disqualified for life and deprived of at least 11 medals won in those games. Unfortunately, it turned out that similar practice took place during 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, 2012 London Olympic Games and 2016 Rio de Janeiro Games (https://sport.tvp.pl/35094352/afera-dopingowa-w-rosji-kalendarium).