The right to participation of people with disabilities in E-Sports and the challenge of doping: balancing fairness and equality
Document Type : Original Article
Author
Alborz Campus of the University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
As an emerging industry, E-sports is growing rapidly, with revenues projected to reach $5.7 billion by 2028. As the industry expands, people with disabilities have also found more opportunities to participate in these competitions. The use of adaptive equipment to improve their physical and cognitive abilities has helped them participate in e-sports, but this has faced challenges such as respecting the principles of “fairness” and “equality” in competitions. One of the challenges is cheating or “e-doping,” which can occur through the manipulation of equipment and software. Examining the balance between fairness and equality in e-sports competitions for people with disabilities requires legal analysis within the framework of international law. This research examines the legal obligations of states under the “Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities” and analyzes the decisions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport in this regard. An analysis of the Pistorius and Lipper cases on assistive devices and competitive advantage illuminates the legal and ethical challenges in this area. This study emphasizes the need to strike a balance between securing the rights of people with disabilities and maintaining fair competition.
Keywords
1. بیات کمیتکی، مهناز و انجلاس، کوثر. (1399). شناسایی حقوق بیناجنسیها؛ از شناسایی منفی تا شناسایی مثبت، مجله حقوق پزشکی، 14، 55، 202-175.
2. Baltazar, P., Hassan, L., Turunen, M. (2023). “It’s Easier to Play Alone”: A Survey Study of Gaming with Disabilities. Journal of Electronic Gaming and Esports, 1, 1-15. DOI: 10.1123/jege.2022-0029
3. Court of Arbitration for Sport. (2008). Pistorius v. IAAF, CAS 2008/A/1480 (May 16, 2008).
4. Court of Arbitration for Sport. (2019). Mokgadi Caster Semenya v. International Association of Athletics Federations, CAS 2018/O/5794 (Apr. 30, 2019).
5. Court of Arbitration for Sport. (2020). Leeper v. International Association of Athletics Federations, CAS 2020/A/6807, (Oct. 23, 2020).
6. Esports Integrity Commission. (2016). Code of Conduct.
7. Fashina, O. (2021). Doping in esports: How and to what extent can we look to WADA for guidance. Sports Lawyer Journal, 28, 19-48.
8. Hindin, J., Hawzen, M., Xue, H., Pu, H., Newman, J. (2020). Routledge handbook of global sport (J. Nauright & S. Zipp, Eds.). Routledge. pp. 405-407.
9. International Esports Federation. (2017). Competition Regulations.
10. International Esports Federation. (2017). Statute.
11. Jenny, S. E., Manning, R. D., Keiper, M. C., & Olrich, T. W. (2017). Virtual(ly) athletes: Where eSports fit within the definition of “sport”. Quest, 69(1), 1-18.
12. Rosenthal, R. R. (2021). A tough pill to swallow: Making the case for why esports leagues must adopt strict banned substance policies to prevent disability discrimination. Virginia Sports & Entertainment Law Journal, 20(1), 76-105.
13. Shiohara, T. (2024). Paving the Way for the Protection of Human Rights in Sports: The Case of Intersex and Transgender Female Athletes. Switzerland: Stämpfli Verlag.
14. Taylor, T. L. (2012). Raising the stakes: E-sports and the professionalization of computer gaming. MIT Press.
15. The United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
16. Tseng, Y.-S. (2020). The principles of esports engagement: A universal code of conduct. Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 27, 209, 240-247.
17. Witkowski, E. (2012). On the digital playing field: How we “do sport” with networked computer games. Games and Culture, 7(5), 349-374.
18. Websites
20. www.insider.com
