In this blog post, we will analyze the causes of this crisis—including the overreliance on StarCraft, copyright and broadcasting rights disputes, and issues regarding player ethics—using real-world examples, and propose feasible solutions.
Esports refers to competitive sports played through computer and video games. Since mental abilities play a greater role than general physical abilities, it is classified as a mental sport. The development of esports in South Korea began in earnest with the rise of “StarCraft” (hereinafter StarCraft 1). As StarCraft 1 gained massive popularity in South Korea, StarCraft 1 leagues and broadcasters emerged. Subsequently, the Korea e-Sports Association (KeSPA) was established to continuously host leagues, manage players, and gradually build an industrial framework.
The range of titles expanded beyond ‘StarCraft’ to include various games such as ‘Warcraft III’ and ‘Counter-Strike,’ and in 2005, the scale of tournaments and prize money reached their peak. In 2007, the establishment of the Air Force ACE—the first military esports team—seemed to offer a solution to the military service issues faced by professional gamers, marking a turning point in the recognition of esports as a legitimate sport.
However, this upward trend began to wane after 2007, and the industry gradually contracted. The match-fixing scandal of 2010 and the ‘StarCraft’ copyright dispute that occurred the same year stemmed from conflicts over broadcasting rights and revenue distribution. When the Korea e-Sports Association began generating revenue from broadcasting the professional league, the game’s developer, Blizzard, viewed this as a commercial activity and entered into negotiations. The talks broke down, and Blizzard eventually filed a lawsuit against OnGameNet and MBC Game. After about a year of legal battles, the association and Blizzard reached a settlement, but this series of events accelerated the decline of esports, and by early 2012, the situation had become a serious crisis due to MBC Game’s channel transition.
The problems facing esports manifest in various ways. First, there was an excessive focus on a small number of star players. During the golden age that lasted until around 2006, specific stars drove public interest, but after their skills declined or they retired, there was a lack of players capable of replacing them; even when replacements emerged, they failed to attract the same level of public attention as their predecessors. In particular, the revelation that some star players had engaged in match-fixing caused significant shock and disappointment among the public. This was compounded by a combination of factors, including operational issues within the association, copyright disputes, the limited lifespan of the games themselves, and limitations in public perception.
Among these, the biggest problem was the stagnation of the game lineup. Although several new titles were added, their lifespan and popularity fell far short of those of ‘StarCraft’. ‘Warcraft III’ appeared to be successful for a brief period, but it self-destructed when a map manipulation scandal involving league officials came to light (an incident where a commentator manipulated the maps used in the league to give a specific faction an advantage), and the individuals involved were expelled from the broadcasting company. This incident and others weakened the standing of other titles as well, and eventually, many titles lost public interest.
Consequently, the dominance of ‘StarCraft’ became entrenched, leading to the stereotype that “e-sports equals the ‘StarCraft’ league.” This resulted in a closed-off structure confined solely to South Korea—a phenomenon known as “Galápagosization.” Although the issue of title dominance had been pointed out for a long time, there was a lack of clear efforts to resolve it, and as time passed, its limitations became evident.
Efforts to diversify titles have continued, but successful cases are rare. “Special Force,” one of the titles that received the most attention, launched a professional league by recruiting players from StarCraft I pro teams, yet the public response was lukewarm, and the league was eventually shut down due to stability issues with the game itself. “KartRider” and “Sudden Attack” also maintained their leagues but failed to garner significant attention. Meanwhile, “Tekken” achieved some commercial success as MBC Game consistently hosted tournaments, but the league struggled to maintain itself after MBC Game ceased operations. Although OnGameNet has kept the tradition alive, the response is not as strong as it once was.
Another key issue is the transition between previous and subsequent titles. When a developer releases a sequel, conflicts with the previous title can lead to the mutual destruction of both. The introduction of ‘StarCraft II’ (hereinafter StarCraft II) is a prime example. With the release of StarCraft II, players and leagues had to switch disciplines, but existing stakeholders remained fixated on the previous title. Consequently, they failed to attract sponsors, causing the existing StarCraft I-centered ecosystem to collapse. Several teams disbanded, and MBC Game disappeared after switching channels. In its early stages, StarCraft II failed to secure a domestic user base and thus did not achieve high market share. Although GomTV signed an agreement with Blizzard and has been independently developing a StarCraft II league, it has not achieved the same level of recognition as StarCraft I in South Korea due to the limitations of internet broadcasting. It is fortunate, however, that the Korea e-Sports Association and OnGameNet are partnering with Blizzard to promote the adoption of StarCraft II.
However, significant losses had already been incurred in many areas, and while OnGameNet is hosting the StarCraft II StarLeague, the overall response has fallen short of expectations. Many observers note that the event has not achieved the same level of success as the StarCraft I era, particularly in terms of the finals’ popularity.
There are several ways to address these issues. First, it is not too late to diversify the lineup of games. Since the current gaming market is structured around multiple games sharing a certain market share rather than a single game dominating, diversifying the lineup is not as difficult as it used to be. Since star players do not emerge artificially, finding a fundamental solution to their absence is difficult. However, players must strive to become star players themselves by engaging in activities that boost not only their gaming skills but also their social visibility, and esports organizers must create a structure that does not rely excessively on specific star players.
Furthermore, the collaboration between league organizers and game developers must be strengthened. Since esports is centered around games, cooperation with game developers is unavoidable, at least from a technical standpoint. Additionally, given the copyright issues involved, collaboration with game developers is essential. Copyright issues are more serious than one might think, as can be easily understood by looking at the copyright dispute between Blizzard and the association. Fortunately, this issue tends to resolve itself naturally to some extent, as all major esports tournaments held today are organized through cooperation with game developers. In particular, as more modern games are developed with esports in mind from the outset, this cooperation is expected to become even closer.
It is also necessary to continuously improve public perception. First, ethical education for players must be strengthened to ensure that unsavory incidents like match-fixing never occur again. Given that the negative impacts of gaming are being heavily reported in the media and various policies aimed at regulating gaming are emerging, esports stakeholders, such as associations, must devote significant effort to dispel these negative perceptions. Amateur tournaments must be held on a regular basis, research on the positive effects of gaming must be conducted consistently, and efforts must be made to address gaming addiction through proper education.
The most critical issue is the association’s need for self-reflection. The association’s past conduct has been sufficient to cast doubt on its competence and qualifications. In the dispute over broadcasting rights with TV networks, the association asserted its rights to the professional league and demanded broadcasting fees from the networks, which pushed back. Ultimately, the association and the networks reached an agreement whereby the networks acknowledged that the broadcasting rights belonged to the association but retained priority rights, and both the professional and individual leagues returned to normal operations. The broadcasting fees, which had been a major point of contention, were agreed upon at a significantly reduced level.
However, there were also instances where the Association focused solely on its own interests, turning minor issues into major ones and exacerbating problems—such as the superficial free agency (FA) system and the aforementioned copyright dispute with Blizzard. Although the Association once received positive evaluations for its proactive stance in collaborating with Blizzard to introduce “StarCraft II,” it faced criticism again after suddenly announcing its withdrawal from the GSL (Global StarCraft II League, hosted by GomTV). Additionally, when teams disbanded, the association formed its own team (Team No. 8) to manage the remaining players; however, some have pointed out that it would have been wiser to seek ways to prevent the teams from disbanding in the first place. Overall, the association has repeatedly responded by cleaning up after problems arise, which inevitably leads to a decline in trust.
The association’s role is more significant than one might think. It is an indispensable institution when it comes to tax benefits for tournament prize money and the procedures required for esports to be recognized as an official sport. The association must recognize the importance of its role, engage in self-reflection, and work toward improvement.
Since the early 2010s, “League of Legends” (hereinafter LOL) has emerged as the new dominant game in South Korea, and the transition to a league format has progressed rapidly. Due to the game’s high popularity, the transition to a league format was swift, early tournaments were large-scale, and the outlook was bright. World championships are held actively, and there is close collaboration with the developer, Riot Games. Riot was proactive in promoting esports, including directly hosting the “League of Legends World Championship.” This tournament invites 12 teams from around the world, with three teams from North America, three from Europe, two from China, two from South Korea, one from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau, and one from Southeast Asia. It is currently the largest LOL tournament and ranks among the top esports events overall.
Games will continue to be developed, and the number of titles suitable for esports will grow. While esports faces challenges today, successfully overcoming these obstacles could lead to achievements far surpassing past successes. If we acknowledge the issues discussed earlier and continue to strive for progress with passion for esports, the day when esports is officially recognized as a sport will not be far off.
