Challenges of E-sports Governance in Iran

Introduction

Over the past decade, e-sports have emerged as one of the fastest-growing industries worldwide, uniquely blurring the boundaries between “sport” and “entertainment” (Pourmarouf & Afrouzeh, 2024). This phenomenon reflects profound cultural, technological, and economic transformations in contemporary societies (Kelly et al., 2022). During the COVID-19 pandemic, when traditional sports activities were largely halted, e-sports filled the void of competition and excitement for millions globally, becoming a new dominant stream in sports and media consumption (Shinohara, 2023). By virtue of their digital nature, e-sports attract a wide spectrum of players and audiences, primarily young individuals (Pourmarouf & Afrouzeh, 2025). Unlike traditional sports, e-sports operate within a context where virtual interactions, user-generated content, and live-streaming platforms such as YouTube and Twitch serve as key elements of cultural engagement (Kelly et al., 2022). Consequently, e-sports occupy the intersection of sport, technology, and media, where competition, excitement, and technical skill merge with interactive participation and digital content creation (Abanazir & Shinohara, 2024).

However, behind this remarkable growth lie significant challenges in governance and regulation (Postma et al., 2022). The e-sports industry lacks a centralized and integrated governance structure and, compared to established traditional sports systems, exhibits fundamental weaknesses in transparency, accountability, and stakeholder support (Shinohara, 2023). This governance gap, given the commercial nature of the industry and the widespread participation of children and adolescents, has led to issues such as player welfare, mental health, corruption, discrimination, gambling, and financial exploitation (Kelly et al., 2022).

While international bodies such as the International Olympic Committee are gradually recognizing the role of e-sports within the global sports ecosystem, a long way remains before official recognition, the development of coherent policies, and the implementation of sound governance principles in the industry can be achieved (Postma et al., 2022). Much of this challenge stems from the unique ownership structure within the e-sports ecosystem, where game publishers control competition rules, disciplinary regulations, and even the career pathways of players (Kim & Manoli, 2024). This concentration of power in the hands of private companies has created a form of exclusive governance that often conflicts with traditional sports governance principles, such as independence, accountability, and transparency (Das, 2023).

On the other hand, the rapid economic growth of the industry and the influx of major investors, media outlets, and traditional professional teams have made the need to redefine governance models increasingly urgent (Kelly et al., 2022). In the absence of transparent frameworks, the risk of eroding public trust, undermining the legitimacy of organizing institutions, and diminishing investment incentives in this sector is heightened Peng et al., 2020). This issue is particularly pronounced in countries like Iran, where a coherent institutional and policy structure for e-sports has yet to be established (Pourmarouf & Afrouzeh, 2025). Governance in e-sports, unlike traditional sports, emerges from a network of commercial, technological, and cultural actors. While this system is largely self-regulated, it is heavily influenced by the economic interests of game publishers, streaming platforms, and sponsors (Heidenreich et al., 2024). Currently, various governance models encompass three general patterns:

First, there is the company-centered self-regulation model (e.g., Riot Games or Blizzard), which relies primarily on internal policies (Kelly et al., 2022). Second, the international institutional model (e.g., the International Esports Federation – IESF) seeks coordination with bodies such as WADA and the IOC. Finally, the hybrid or network model is based on collaboration among governments, companies, players, and non-governmental organizations (Peng et al., 2020). Although the first model is more prevalent globally, it has faced considerable criticism. Game publishers effectively act as the “legislator, executor, and referee” of competitions, creating inherent conflicts of interest (Das, 2023). Moreover, in the absence of binding international regulations, disciplinary violations, collusion, or digital doping in one league may continue unchecked in others (Oye et al., 2025). Cases such as the suspension of Team Newbee in China due to match-fixing, followed by their continued participation in other tournaments, highlight the weaknesses of transnational governance (da Silva Candeo et al., 2025). In contrast, the establishment of institutions like the Esports Integrity Commission (ESIC) or the IESF reflects a global move toward standardization and combating corruption, collusion, and doping. Although these bodies still wield limited executive authority, their efforts to develop “global ethical codes” for the industry represent a significant step forward (da Silva Candeo et al., 2025).

Esports governance faces challenges that can be categorized across three levels. First, the concentration of intellectual property ownership in the hands of game publishers obstructs the development of independent and multilateral governance structures (Heidenreich et al., 2024). National regulations often lack clarity regarding the legal definition of “esports” and its distinction from online gaming or digital gambling (Ghoshal, 2019). Second, the widespread participation of underage players, combined with psychological pressures and long training hours, raises concerns about their physical and mental well-being (Kelly et al., 2022). The absence of contractual protections and cohesive professional associations further exacerbates these issues (Kelly et al., 2022). Third, negative perceptions of digital games, gender stereotypes, and cultural biases have limited the social acceptance of esports in certain communities (Shinohara, 2023). In Iran, key barriers to effective governance include insufficient institutional support, weak infrastructure, and lack of coordination among relevant ministries such as Sports, Communications, and Education (Mohammadi Raoof et al., 2022).

Comparative studies of countries such as South Korea, China, and Australia indicate that successful governance in esports relies on a strategic combination of government policymaking, industry standardization, and active involvement of private stakeholders (Gulati, 2025). For instance, the Korea e-Sports Association (KeSPA) operates under the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism and is responsible for regulating relationships among players, teams, and companies (Gulati, 2025). In contrast, the Australian Esports Association adopts a voluntary approach, emphasizing gender equality, anti-discrimination principles, and the development of professional career pathways (Australian Esports Association, 2018).

Esports, as a novel and rapidly growing branch of sports and recreational activities, has emerged over the past decade as a significant global phenomenon (Pourmarouf et al., 2025). Leveraging digital technologies and online networks, this sector has attracted a broad audience, particularly among younger generations, offering a combination of competitive excitement, high performance, and digital interaction (Oye et al., 2025). While traditional sports are grounded in physical activity and on-site competition, esports, with its unique characteristics—such as the ability to hold global tournaments without geographical limitations and a focus on digital content and experiences—represents a paradigm shift in the very concept of sport (Pourmarouf & Afrouzeh, 2025). This shift creates both opportunities and challenges for policymakers, sports organizations, and the professional community, particularly in governance and management (Oye et al., 2025).

In recent years, numerous studies have focused on sports governance in Iran, examining its managerial, structural, and institutional dimensions (Mohammadi Raoof et al., 2022). Some studies have concentrated on the design and validation of governance models and instruments, such as the Good Governance Questionnaire for the Ministry of Sports and Youth (Zareian & Rasekh, 2019), the Electronic Good Governance Model (Rostam Zadeh et al., 2019), and the analysis of fundamental governance propositions (da Silva Candeo et al., 2025). Other research has investigated the impact of governance on organizational performance and employee innovation (da Silva Candeo et al., 2025). Some studies have examined factors influencing the realization of optimal governance in national sports (Gholami et al., 2021), while others have focused on oversight, accountability, and social capital dimensions (da Silva Candeo et al., 2025).

In Iran, esports is still in its formative and consolidating stages. Despite growing public interest and private investment, a clear and comprehensive governance framework for this sector has yet to be established (Abdolmaleki et al., 2025). The absence of governance infrastructure gives rise to several critical issues, including contract management and player rights, ensuring mental health and professional well-being, monitoring competitive integrity, addressing digital violations such as cheating and match-fixing, and establishing ethical and legal standards that can foster public trust and sustainable investment. Many professional and semi-professional players in Iran, particularly adolescents and young adults, face social and legal risks due to the lack of protective frameworks and continuous oversight (Rostam Zadeh et al., 2019).

A central challenge in esports governance is the wide diversity of games and competitive formats (Yaraghi Esfahani & Hajian, 2025). Each game has its own rules, features, and lifecycle, making the development of a single governance model adaptable to this variety a major challenge (Jenny et al., 2017). Moreover, the digital and global nature of esports increases the potential for complex international violations, including illegal betting, match manipulation, data tampering, and virtual competitions (Hamari & Sjöblom, 2017). The lack of coordination between national and international bodies, both in Iran and globally, exacerbates these issues, highlighting that adherence to global standards is unattainable without a coherent governance structure (Abdolmaleki et al., 2025).

At the same time, the economic and social opportunities arising from the expansion of esports make the establishment of effective governance even more critical. This sector can provide significant revenue and investment opportunities for clubs, game publishers, and sponsors, while also offering substantial capacity for education, employment, social interaction, and cultural diplomacy (Hamari & Sjöblom, 2017). However, the absence of transparent and coherent mechanisms increases the risk of stakeholder distrust, damage to associated brands, and diminished social legitimacy (Seo, 2016).

Another crucial dimension is the need to prioritize the welfare and protection of adolescent and young players. A significant portion of the esports audience consists of youth, who studies indicate are at risk of gaming addiction, psychological and social harm, toxic behaviors, and even online harassment (Kaye et al., 2017). Consequently, governance in this domain must address not only economic and competitive management but also ensure the protection and support of young participants. This responsibility aligns with international obligations, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and ethical standards in sports, directly influencing the legitimacy and credibility of Iran’s esports industry (Abdolmaleki et al., 2025).

Despite the importance and urgency of governance in esports, existing research indicates that systematic studies in this field are limited in Iran. The lack of accurate data and scientific analyses on legal, economic, social, and managerial challenges hinders policy formulation and the development of effective mechanisms. Furthermore, existing models from traditional sports—although successful in areas such as federation management, anti-doping regulations, and international standards—cannot be directly transferred to esports due to fundamental differences between digital and traditional sports. This knowledge gap underscores the need for research that examines, analyzes, and proposes governance strategies tailored to both local and global contexts for esports in Iran. Overall, the research problem of this study focuses on the absence of a comprehensive governance structure, challenges related to player health and welfare, legal and ethical complexities, and the lack of coordination among diverse stakeholders in Iran’s esports industry. Given the rapid global growth of this sector and the significant presence of young audiences, there is an urgent need for transparent, flexible, and coherent systems for management, oversight, and regulation. Accordingly, this qualitative study, aiming to analyze various dimensions of governance challenges, provide a comprehensive understanding of Iran’s esports ecosystem, and offer practical and scholarly recommendations, is guided by the following research question: How do key stakeholders experience and interpret the governance challenges of esports in Iran?   

Research Methods

Given the nature of the research problem and the limited empirical resources available regarding governance challenges in Iran’s esports sector, the present study is classified as a qualitative, exploratory investigation. In terms of its purpose, it falls within applied research, as it seeks to identify and analyze contextual dimensions and factors to provide actionable recommendations for effective national-level esports policy. The study adopts an interpretive paradigm, emphasizing the understanding of meaning and the social experiences of participants. The research was conducted using an inductive approach, meaning that data analysis proceeded without a predefined theoretical framework, aiming to extract concepts and patterns emergent from the data. The primary strategy for data analysis was thematic analysis, implemented through Braun and Clarke’s six-step method (2006). Data sources included semi-structured interviews with experts, managers, coaches, and key stakeholders in Iran’s esports ecosystem, supplemented by the analysis of theoretical texts and existing high-level documents. Data analysis was carried out using thematic coding, and findings are presented through key participant quotations. The study involved twelve expert participants in the field of esports, purposefully selected. Drawing on the authors’ professional experience in esports, participants were recruited from the authors’ professional network, ensuring a diversity of experiences. Consequently, interviewees were chosen to represent both practical and academic perspectives. Semi-structured interviews were employed as the data collection tool, particularly suited for contexts where limited prior knowledge exists (Asefi, 2025).

Table 1- Demographic Characteristics of Research Participants

The data collection process in this study was conducted with the aim of obtaining in-depth and rich insights into the governance challenges of esports in Iran. To ensure coherence and accuracy, a semi-structured interview guide was first developed based on the relevant theoretical literature and the study’s objectives. This guide included key thematic areas designed in an open and flexible manner to allow for in-depth exploration during the interviews. Initially, two pilot interviews were conducted to assess the content and operational validity of the interview guide. Qualitative analysis of these pilot interviews led to revisions in some questions; in particular, certain questions were rephrased for greater clarity, and new questions were added to cover overlooked dimensions. This revision enhanced the internal consistency of the tool and enabled the extraction of deeper data.

After finalizing the data collection instrument, 12 expert participants in Iran’s esports sector—including managers, coaches, specialists, and national athletes—were purposefully selected based on theoretical criteria. For instance, one key interview question was, “How is the governance structure of esports in Iran organized?” To ensure participants’ mental preparedness, the interview guide was shared with them prior to the sessions. In all cases, written or verbal informed consent was obtained, and ethical considerations—including confidentiality and the right to withdraw at any stage—were clearly explained. Participant selection was based on three criteria: first, having substantial professional experience within Iran’s esports ecosystem; second, accessibility and availability to allocate sufficient time for the interview; and third, diversity in roles, experiences, and perspectives to provide a comprehensive understanding of governance in this field.

The interviews were conducted between August and October 2025, with some taking place in person and others via telephone depending on logistical constraints. Each method has its advantages and limitations; however, according to existing literature, telephone interviews also hold acceptable validity in qualitative research (Khan et al., 2022). Interview durations ranged from 30 to 45 minutes, and all conversations were audio-recorded with the participants’ permission. The interviews were conducted by the researcher, who ensured a balanced interaction, promoting an open and non-directive dialogue. Clarifications or confirmations were only provided when necessary to maintain data quality (Rayan et al., 2009).

 Following each interview, the recordings were transcribed for thematic analysis. This data-driven process followed Braun and Clarke’s six-phase method (2006), which includes familiarization with the data, generation of initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the final report.

Thematic analysis was employed to analyze the data, with interviews transcribed and the six-phase process systematically applied. According to Table 2, a sample of the coding process in the initial stage facilitated the researcher’s familiarization with the data and provided a basis for initial engagement. The second stage focused on extracting codes that formed the foundational elements of the analysis. As the interviews progressed, coding was conducted simultaneously at both semantic and latent levels, with previous interviews continuously reviewed alongside the current one. In phase three, the focus was on developing themes that reflected the key aspects of the data in relation to the research questions (Brown & Clarke, 2006). Phase four involved reviewing and refining the themes through two levels of assessment: ensuring that the data extracts within each theme formed coherent patterns, and confirming that the themes were clear, distinct, and meaningfully represented the dataset (Clarke & Braun, 2006). Additionally, the entire dataset was revisited to ensure that the developed themes accurately reflected participants’ experiences and moved toward an interpretive level. Phase five involved defining and naming the themes, and finally, phase six focused on report production, where the researcher aimed to create a concise, coherent, and logical narrative presented in the subsequent section.

Table 2- Sample of Thematic Coding

To ensure the quality and trustworthiness of the data, a series of systematic measures were implemented based on Guba and Lincoln’s criteria (1989, 1994) (Lay & Papadopoulos, 2007). For credibility, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted to elicit participants’ authentic experiences, and member checking was employed by returning parts of the analysis to several participants to confirm the accuracy of interpretations. Data triangulation was also applied, drawing on multiple sources including interviews, policy documents, official reports, and existing research, to strengthen the validity of the findings. Regarding transferability, rich descriptions of participants’ experiences, organizational and structural contexts, and real-life examples were provided to enable logical generalization. For confirmability, the researcher maintained a reflexive journal and documented all research decisions and coding processes as an audit trail. Finally, dependability was ensured through careful review of analytical procedures by a second researcher, iterative coding, repeated data checks, and pilot interviews with revisions to the data collection instruments. These measures collectively established a comprehensive framework for enhancing the accuracy, transparency, and reproducibility of the qualitative findings.

Findings

The findings were categorized into three main themes: Lack of an integrated governance structure in Iranian e-sports (institutional fragmentation and overlapping responsibilities, weak government regulatory role, legal and judicial gaps), Challenges in competition integrity and tournament management (lack of unified standards and financial risk), and Stakeholder participation in Iranian e-sports governance (unilateral decision-making without stakeholder participation, delays and inefficiencies in the decision-making process, self-organized and alternative networks).

Lack of a Unified Governance Structure in Iranian Esports

Table 3- Thematic coding of Lack of a Unified Governance Structure in Iranian Esports

One of the key themes emerging from interviews with experts in the Iranian esports sector was the absence of a unified governance structure. Almost all participants highlighted the dispersion, ambiguity, and overlapping roles among the responsible institutions, identifying this as a primary factor behind slow growth, policy incoherence, and instability in the development of the industry in Iran.

P3 stated:

“Currently, we are faced with a collection of parallel institutions: the Ministry of Sport and Youth, the Federation of Public Sports, the Esports Association, the Computer Games Association, the Ministry of Science’s Academic Sports department, and even private companies—all consider themselves responsible. But there is no ultimate decision-making authority. This institutional overlap causes policies to be short-term, non-transparent, and sometimes contradictory.”

This issue also manifests at the structural level. P6 noted:

“In leading countries like South Korea or China, there is a central body supported by both the government and the private sector, responsible for policy-making, financial support, and setting standards. In Iran, however, each organization holds a piece of the puzzle, but no institution manages the overall picture of competitive esports.”

From the participants’ perspective, the root of this lack lies in the ambiguous identity of esports in Iran—whether it belongs to sports, culture, technology, or entertainment. P1 explained:

“We are still at the stage of defining esports as a sport. Some institutions see it as entertainment, others as a sport, and some as a digital industry. This fragmentation of definitions has prevented any comprehensive and coordinated policy from forming.”

According to most participants, this absence of governance structure has led to the creation of “decision-making islands,” where each institution independently organizes competitions, issues licenses, or sets regulations without any coordination mechanism. P7 stated:

“Every time we try to obtain an event license, we have to go to several different authorities: the Ministry of Culture for content approval, the Association for event licensing, and sometimes even the cyber police for security oversight. This process is lengthy, costly, and exhausting. The lack of coordination practically destroys private sector motivation.”

P9 highlighted the cultural and social dimension:

“As long as there is no unified governance structure, we cannot develop proper cultural and educational policies to support players and their families. In the absence of a central institution, training, psychological support, and even ethical issues are left unattended.”

P4 emphasized the impact on the sustainability of the esports economy:

“In other countries, governing bodies set up support frameworks for investors. But in Iran, the lack of a clear structure means there is no guarantee for return on investment. Consequently, serious investors do not enter the field.”

P5 pointed to weak communication between governing bodies and the media:

“When there is no central institution, no unified message reaches society. National media still lacks a clear image of esports, which prevents audiences and families from having a proper understanding of this sector.”

Some interviews also stressed the inactive role of the government in regulation. P8 said:

“So far, the government has had only a supervisory perspective, not a strategic one. True regulation means creating transparent frameworks, supporting innovation, and ensuring fair competition. But such a mechanism does not yet exist in Iran.”

On the other hand, the private sector is reluctant to participate due to the lack of transparency and clear legal frameworks. P11 explained:

“When we don’t know how revenues are distributed and which institution is accountable, entering this field is high-risk. There is no official authority to guarantee contracts or resolve disputes.”

P10 analyzed:

“The absence of a central structure has created a legal vacuum. We have no clear laws regarding intellectual property for games, player transfers, or organizing competitions. The result is unregulated and non-transparent growth.”

Despite these challenges, some participants believed there is still an opportunity to establish an effective structure, provided that an institutional coalition and cross-sector coordination among existing bodies is formed. P2 said:

“If the Ministry of Sport, Ministry of Science, Ministry of Communications, and Ministry of Culture can act together under a national council focused on esports development, many problems would be solved. But this requires political will and a cross-sectoral approach.”

Others suggested creating an institution similar to an Esports Federation that could simultaneously serve as policymaker, regulator, and supervisor. P12 stated:

“We need an institution that combines governmental structure with professional independence; one that has decision-making power both technically and culturally. Without such a central body, the development of this field proceeds more by chance than by planning.”

P11 emphasized:

“Governance is not just about regulations; it’s about building trust. When players, families, sponsors, and the media trust the structure, the path for development naturally becomes smoother.”

Challenges in Competition Integrity and Tournament Management

Table 4- Thematic coding of Challenges in Competition Integrity and Tournament Management

One of the fundamental challenges is the existence of a diverse and sometimes contradictory set of rules applied at different levels (private leagues, governmental organizations, foreign publishers). This leads to inconsistent enforcement of penalties and suspensions. P9 stated:

“In Iran, there is still no official structure or nationwide league for esports. When a player or team causes an issue in an informal competition, there is practically no single authority to enforce decisions nationally or across other competitions. In other words, the lack of a central governance body has led each event to operate independently, with no unified standards for discipline and order in esports.”

This situation has practical consequences: unhealthy behaviors are repeated, investors and sponsors become skeptical about the certainty of decisions, and players are unaware of their mutual rights. From a tournament risk management perspective, the absence of a national disciplinary authority makes complex violations, such as match-fixing or structural cheating, difficult to track.

Technical issues are also a critical component of integrity. At the national level, the lack of mandatory standards for anti-cheat software, reliable log recording, and maintaining the digital evidence chain makes it difficult to detect and prove cheating or manipulation. P11 explained:

“In Iran, most esports competitions are held informally or independently, and organizers often lack advanced technical anti-cheat tools. When cheating or disputes occur, the documentation and logs are incomplete, and there is no technical or judicial authority for comprehensive review. Therefore, decisions regarding results or suspensions are extremely limited and non-transparent.”

Ambiguity in the digital evidence chain also has legal consequences; electronic evidence must be maintained according to standards to be valid in arbitration or legal processes. Without these standards, many cases reduce to “he said, she said,” diminishing the possibility of justice.

One distinguishing feature of esports compared to traditional sports is the powerful role of game publishers. Publishers can alter game mechanics through updates or patches, which can suddenly change the competitiveness of a title and its tournament format. P6 stated:

“A new patch may arrive in a week that changes the meta, and a team built on the previous meta no longer has a chance to compete. If our leagues don’t have flexible contracts for such conditions, holding fair competitions is impossible.”

In Iran, the lack of predictive contractual frameworks for dealing with patches has led organizers either to cancel tournaments quickly or implement rules that later result in disputes.

Financial transparency and non-fulfillment of monetary obligations are additional challenges. There are many reports of teams or gamers receiving prizes late or incompletely, which undermines trust. P4 said:
“Sometimes the organizer announces after the competition ends that due to financial or currency issues, payments are delayed. This is catastrophic for semi-professional players who rely on it for their livelihood.”

The absence of auditing and clear financial reporting mechanisms at the tournament level, and the lack of legal obligations to guarantee prize payments in contracts, increase risk for both players and investors.

The expansion of betting platforms and the lack of clear regulations regarding game-related betting increase opportunities for collusion and corruption. P7 noted:

“When there is no regulated official betting market, underground betting grows. This phenomenon quickly erodes audience trust.”

Holding tournaments in Iran usually requires interaction with multiple authorities (Culture, Sports, Communications, Cyber Police), but there is no specialized final authority to resolve disputes in professional competitions. P10 explained:

“Currently, when a dispute arises between a player and an organizer, the parties have to approach multiple authorities, and the case remains pending for months. The absence of a dedicated national esports arbitration body is a serious gap.”

Without a recognized and dedicated authority, enforcement of decisions and rapid dispute resolution become difficult, increasing legal and time costs.

Issues related to publishing rights, broadcasting, and media contracts are also contentious in Iran. Many small organizers lack broadcasting permissions or have ambiguous contracts with platforms, which later leads to revenue and rights disputes. P2 said:

“Broadcasting rights in esports are an emerging market, but without standard and transparent contracts, revenue distribution and media resource allocation face challenges. This gap becomes particularly problematic when national competitions involve international publishers or overseas teams.”

Stakeholder Participation in the Governance of Esports in Iran

Table 5- Thematic coding of Stakeholder Participation in the Governance of Esports in Iran

Participants emphasized that the governance landscape of esports in Iran lacks a formal mechanism for multi-stakeholder dialogue and decision-making. Policy-making in this field is predominantly top-down, carried out without consultation with executive actors or the player community. P12 stated:

“On the surface, we have advisory meetings, but in practice, the outcomes are predetermined. When the Ministry of Sports or a higher authority issues a policy, we only play an implementing role, not a decision-making one. No one ever asks the clubs or managers what consequences these decisions might have for them.”

This one-sided decision-making model has led many non-governmental actors to feel powerless and institutionally marginalized. On the other hand, governmental bodies often rely on inaccurate data and assessments due to the absence of a coherent communication channel with active stakeholders. P1 remarked:

“When we attend planning sessions, it feels like a top-down perspective; our input is mostly heard as background noise. They still see the gamer as a ‘user,’ not a decision-making partner.”

From a theoretical standpoint, this pattern reflects “symbolic governance,” a situation where institutions ostensibly invite stakeholders to participate, but decisions are already made. The consequence is the erosion of social capital between the governing body and the active ecosystem. P4 noted:

“Essentially, in the gaming realm, we are players who don’t create the tools. The rules come from outside, yet we are expected to oversee their content. The result is that we neither reach international standards nor does our internal structure make sense.”

This contradiction causes delays, complexities, and sometimes cancellations in decisions regarding hosting international events or sending teams abroad. For example, visa changes, financial sanctions, and content restrictions prevent international actors from cooperating with Iranian institutions. P9 explained:

“When we want to hold an international tournament, we need permission from three authorities, and ultimately, the foreign publisher does not approve because the game content is filtered in Iran. This structural conflict halts everything.”

Professional players are most affected, as they lack both domestic recognition and international acknowledgment as official representatives of the country. The absence of a “national point of contact” that can simultaneously coordinate with publishers, federations, and domestic actors intensifies the governance gap.

Nearly all interviewees stressed a fundamental issue: none of the main stakeholder groups—including players, coaches, streamers, clubs, and brands—have official representation with voting rights in the policy-making process. P1 stated:

“In the current structure, stakeholder participation is mostly symbolic. Even if an association is formed, its license is usually granted from above, and it lacks real independence. We need an institutional participation model, not just attendance in meetings.”

This problem results in decisions that reflect the perspectives of government policymakers rather than the economic and cultural realities of the gaming community. Consequently, many policies are either unenforced or have only short-term effects. P8 explained:

“When new legislation or regulations are introduced, they often fail in implementation due to lack of prior consultation with market actors. For example, the law on age-rating in games is good, but because it is not coordinated with the publisher, it cannot be enforced at all.”

Analytically, this situation represents a form of “institutional asynchrony,” where formal decision-making structures are not aligned with the digital and networked realities of the ecosystem. Key stakeholders—players, brands, organizers—remain outside the formal circle and lack collective representation mechanisms.

At the same time, interview data revealed that, in response to this institutional exclusion, some groups of actors operate in self-organized, networked ways. For instance, certain streamers and small league managers collaborate informally with brands, sponsors, and international entities to sustain the ecosystem through alternative pathways. P5 remarked:

“When governing bodies are mired in bureaucracy, we work directly with sponsors. The network that emerges may not be official, but it is practically more efficient. The problem is that these models are never formally recognized.”

This type of networked governance promotes dynamism in the short term but leads to divergence in the long term, as each network has its own rules and interests. The lack of mechanisms to integrate these networks into the formal structure prevents frontline actors’ knowledge and practical experience from informing decision-making.

In summary, interviews indicate that the main issue regarding stakeholder participation in Iran is the lack of institutional legitimacy in the decision-making process. While many countries are transitioning from directive models to interactive, network-based models, Iran still operates under a centralized, control-oriented governance paradigm. P11 explained:

“We are still in the ‘administration’ paradigm, not ‘co-creation.’ In interactive governance, institutions derive their legitimacy from the participation of others rather than exerting power. Until this change happens, any policy we write remains on paper.”

Reforming the governance structure requires redefining the relationship between the government and the digital community, recognizing players, teams, brands, and streamers as ‘partner actors’.

Discussion

Lack of a Unified Governance Structure in Iranian Esports

The first finding of this study—the absence of a centralized and unified governance structure in Iranian esports—indicates that this sector remains at an early stage of institutional and policy maturity. In other words, despite the quantitative growth of the player community, enthusiasts, and the hosting of limited events, frameworks for governance, regulation, and overarching policy-making have yet to be established. Analysis of the interviews revealed that the root of this issue can be examined across multiple levels: macro-policy (institutional ambiguity and fragmented responsibilities), operational (structural misalignment and lack of shared procedural mechanisms), and socio-cultural (lack of social legitimacy and identity for esports). These findings are consistent with previous research in both esports and traditional sports governance, including studies by Kelly et al. (2022), which highlighted challenges related to institutional fragmentation, and Henry and Lee (2004), who examined the concept of “fragmented governance” in sports.

At the macro level, the most significant barrier to cohesive governance is institutional fragmentation. In Iran, the Ministry of Sports and Youth, the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, the Ministry of Science, and several associations or non-governmental organizations, such as the Iranian Computer Games Association, all intervene in this sector to varying degrees (Pourmarouf & Afrouzeh, 2025). However, none of these entities hold ultimate authority or serve as a decision-making body for policy, standard-setting, or regulating stakeholder relationships. As one participant noted, “In Iran, each organization holds a piece of the puzzle, but no institution manages the overall picture.” This situation exemplifies fragmented decision-making and lack of coherence, a pattern also observed in global studies; for example, research by Kelly et al. (2022) and Heidenreich et al. (2024) indicates that in the absence of a central authority, decision-making is incomplete and discontinuous, resulting in esports development lacking coherence and continuity.

Theoretically, this issue can be explained using the Actor-Network Theory (Shinohara, 2023). Within this framework, governance emerges through networks of relations among human and non-human actors—such as technologies, games, platforms, investors, and governmental institutions (Kelly et al., 2022). In Iran, this network lacks a central nodal point—an entity capable of regulating interaction rules, information flows, and power distribution among actors. In the absence of such a node, each actor pursues short-term interests, producing what participants described as “decision-making islands.” This isolation fosters unproductive competition, conflicts of interest, and even distrust among institutions.

Another critical challenge is the absence of a cross-sectoral integration approach. Esports are inherently interdisciplinary, lying at the intersection of sport, media, technology, digital economy, and public culture (Heidenreich et al., 2024). Effective governance in such a context requires coordinated inter-agency policy-making. However, in Iran, the traditional, vertical structures of governmental agencies lack the capacity for such coordination. Interviewees repeatedly emphasized that each ministry approaches the domain solely from its traditional mandate: the Ministry of Sports from a competitive perspective, the Ministry of Culture from a content perspective, the Ministry of Communications from a technical infrastructure perspective, and the Ministry of Science from an academic elite perspective. The result is policies that, rather than complementing each other, often negate one another in practice.

The lack of a central structure also has direct economic consequences. The esports market is dynamic, reliant on private investment, and built on trust (Zhou & Xiong, 2025). When there is no clear, authoritative governance body, investors and sponsors feel economically insecure (Davis et al., 2025). As one interviewee aptly noted, “When we don’t know how revenues are distributed or which institution is accountable, entering this field is high-risk.” Consequently, the private sector remains on the sidelines, and market development is largely limited to sporadic, small-scale competitions. From the perspective of Legitimacy Theory, the absence of a central institution diminishes the perceived legitimacy of the entire ecosystem among stakeholders, as there is no mechanism to ensure transparency, fairness, and accountability.

At the cultural level, findings indicate that the identity ambiguity of esports in Iran is a major obstacle to formal governance. No consensus exists among decision-making institutions on whether esports should be treated as a “sport,” a “cultural industry,” or a “technological phenomenon.” This identity ambiguity functions as a discursive void, depriving policy-making of meaning. Until a shared definition of the phenomenon exists, legal frameworks, regulations, and ethical standards cannot be developed. Participants repeatedly highlighted this issue; for instance, one stated, “We are still at the stage of defining before accepting that esports is a sport.”

These findings align with global research. Kelly et al. (2022) demonstrated that, in the absence of clear governance structures, esports are prone to issues such as lack of institutional accountability, weak financial transparency, and conflicts between commercial development and player welfare. In countries like South Korea, China, and even Poland, governments have successfully created meta-governance institutions to coordinate across sectors. In Iran, such institutions have not yet emerged, and thus esports development largely depends on the individual initiatives of private sector actors.

Another significant aspect of the findings is the government’s passive role in regulation. Participants believed that the government’s approach has been largely supervisory and controlling rather than facilitative and strategic. Rather than establishing transparent and supportive frameworks for actors, the state focuses primarily on licensing and content control. In contrast, modern regulation is based on the principles of transparency, predictability, and innovation support. Without such mechanisms, Iran’s esports ecosystem lacks a stable and reliable environment for growth. This contrasts with experiences in countries like South Korea, where quasi-governmental regulatory bodies aim to foster innovation and economic growth, not control content or restrict activity.

Theoretically, this situation can also be analyzed through the lens of Agency Theory. In the absence of a central institution, the relationship between the principal (government or regulatory body) and the agents (private and civil actors) becomes highly ambiguous. Lack of accountability mechanisms and mutual oversight increases conflicts of interest, prompting each actor to pursue individual gains over collective welfare. Under such conditions, even the most well-designed development programs become ineffective due to the absence of enforceable guarantees.

Furthermore, the lack of a unified governance structure has negative cultural and social implications. From a sports sociology perspective, it reproduces cultural inequalities, as players without sufficient familial or financial support are more quickly eliminated from competitive cycles. Additionally, the absence of a single authoritative media channel has distorted public perception of esports. Official media, including national broadcasting, have so far failed to present a positive image of this sector or recognize it as part of national sport. In the absence of constructive media discourse, public perception, particularly among families, oscillates between moral concern and cultural ignorance, placing psychological and identity pressures on adolescent players who seek social validation.

comparative analysis with countries sharing similar political, economic, or institutional conditions—such as Turkey, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Brazil, and some Eastern European nations—shows that many also faced institutional fragmentation, but by establishing a central regulatory body, clearly defining roles, and developing government–private sector collaboration mechanisms, they have facilitated esports development. Similarly, the experience of Asia’s “Big Three”—China, South Korea, and Japan—analyzed through a systems thinking approach across six macro systems (ICT infrastructure, education, social acceptance, government roles, NGOs, and industry configuration) demonstrates that sustainable success requires continuous synergy among these systems (Lam & Kuen Wong, 2024). These patterns highlight that esports development is unattainable without social acceptance, media support, NGO participation, and predictable economic frameworks

In analyzing esports governance in Iran, the role of international constraints must be recognized as a structural and determinative factor, as sanctions and political barriers have directly disrupted Iran’s access to the global esports system. These constraints include the inability to obtain formal membership in international regulatory bodies, restrictions on the transfer of specialized technologies and anti-cheat systems, difficulties in attracting foreign sponsors, blocked cooperation with international companies and academies, and serious obstacles to financial transactions. As a result, esports governance in Iran has developed endogenously and largely disconnected from global standards—an outcome that has led to weak standardization, limited transparency, and underdeveloped institutional structures. Overall, the main challenge in this sector is not a lack of human or financial resources, but rather the absence of a coherent “institutional architecture”—a framework capable of defining roles, institutionalizing communication, and ensuring accountability. Based on interview analyses, establishing a central body with legal authority, professional autonomy, and technical expertise—similar to the role of national Olympic committees or international federations in traditional sports—constitutes the essential solution to overcoming the present situation. Such an institution would integrate policymaking, regulation, education, and stakeholder support. Achieving this, especially under international constraints, requires inter-agency political will to prevent the current fragmentation in which each organization operates independently and sometimes in conflict with others.

Challenges in Competitive Integration and Tournament Management in Iranian Esports

The second finding of this study highlights structural and institutional weaknesses in the management and integration of esports competitions in Iran, stemming from the absence of a formal, stable, and standardized system for organizing tournaments and enforcing disciplinary regulations. This deficiency is evident not only at the technical and operational levels but also in legal, economic, and cultural domains, undermining trust among key ecosystem actors, including players, teams, sponsors, and audiences. Similar issues have been reported in studies on fragmented esports governance, where the lack of centralized tournament management and legal oversight results in inconsistent rules and diminished stakeholder confidence (Kelly et al., 2022; Heidenreich et al., 2024; Abdolmaleki et al., 2025).

In countries with professional esports structures, competitive integrity is maintained through multi-layered mechanisms, such as officially recognized national leagues, specialized arbitration bodies, anti-cheat technical systems, and transparent financial reporting frameworks (Zhou & Xiong, 2025). In contrast, in Iran, competitions remain largely fragmented and privately organized, lacking a binding framework for coordination. This has produced fragmented competition governance, in which each organizer applies its own rules, penalties are inconsistently enforced, and contractual relationships among actors lack enforceable guarantees—a finding that aligns with previous research on the institutional and operational challenges of emerging esports markets (Pourmarouf & Afrouzeh, 2025; Yaraghi Esfahani & Hajian, 2025).

One consequence of this fragmentation is the lack of competitive fairness. When tournaments are held without shared standards, disciplinary errors or player misconduct can recur across events, as there is no national system to monitor and enforce sanctions between competitions. Practically, this reduces confidence in disciplinary mechanisms and fosters behavioral instability among players and teams. Data analysis also indicates that this gap extends beyond disciplinary measures to competition risk management; complex violations such as collusion, use of third-party software, or result manipulation often go unaddressed due to the absence of a unified technical and judicial system for collecting and validating digital evidence.

The absence of mandatory anti-cheat software and precise game log recording is a key indicator of weak integration systems. The chain of digital evidence that should allow verification and proof of cheating is often incomplete or inadmissible in many Iranian competitions. While in countries with professional leagues, technical data from each match is stored and encrypted in centralized systems, in Iran, these data are typically controlled by independent organizers and can be altered or deleted. Consequently, not only does the refereeing process become difficult, but in case of disputes, there is no neutral body for technical adjudication. From a procedural fairness perspective, this undermines actors’ trust in the competition system, reducing motivation—especially among semi-professional players—to continue participating.

Another factor affecting tournament management stability is the dominance of foreign publishers over the technical rules of games. Unlike traditional sports, where rules are fixed by international governing bodies, in esports, a publisher can alter the game’s balance entirely through a software patch. In countries with regulatory institutions, such changes are contractually accounted for in competition rules, but in Iran, the lack of such mechanisms creates sudden instability in competitions. Teams and players face changes without prior notice, and organizers often respond with ad hoc or discretionary decisions.

Weak financial transparency and enforcement of obligations are also critical components undermining competitive cohesion. Field evidence shows multiple instances of delayed or unpaid prize distributions. For semi-professional players and teams, this translates to financial insecurity and diminished professional motivation. The absence of auditing systems or financial safeguards, such as escrow accounts for prize payments, has eroded trust in organizers. Similarly, the lack of an official supervisory body to ensure financial commitments deters potential investors. As a result, the economic cycle of competitions remains fragile and unstable, preventing the emergence of a professional market.

A particularly concerning aspect is the rise of informal betting platforms around competitions. In the absence of legal markets and financial oversight, underground betting can lead to result manipulation, collusion, and organized corruption. Experiences from countries such as China, South Korea, and Poland demonstrate that transparent regulation of sports betting can prevent corruption and allocate part of the revenue toward infrastructure development. In contrast, the lack of regulation in Iran has allowed this phenomenon to grow in an uncontrolled, marginal manner, undermining competition credibility and increasing social risks.

From a legal standpoint, the lack of dedicated dispute resolution and specialized arbitration mechanisms constitutes a significant governance gap in Iran’s esports sector. When conflicts occur between players and organizers, there is no specialized authority to adjudicate them, forcing parties to turn to general courts that often lack the technical expertise to address digital or esports-related issues. This results in lengthy legal proceedings, higher costs, and reduced confidence in the fairness of competitive processes. In contrast, countries with developed esports infrastructures, such as South Korea (KeSPA) and France (France Esports), utilize specialized arbitration panels and sports courts with limited jurisdiction to resolve disputes efficiently. The absence of similar institutions in Iran continues to hinder the establishment of a cohesive and reliable competition governance framework.

Media rights and content ownership—key revenue sources in global esports—are also poorly defined in Iran. Without clear contracts between organizers and broadcasting platforms, recurring disputes arise over content ownership and revenue distribution. Given that much of the economic value of competitions comes from live streaming and digital advertising, the lack of a legal framework for media contracts not only eliminates revenue opportunities but also discourages international investors from engaging with domestic events.

In Iran, a negative perception of video games and esports among parts of society, accompanied by labels such as addiction or social isolation, has limited social and cultural support for players and teams and reduced their presence in public and media spaces. Moreover, some game content and advertising do not align with the country’s religious and cultural values, and the absence of local frameworks creates conflicts between organizers and regulatory bodies. The role of families and the community is also significant in restricting access for women and adolescents to online activities, and cultural and social concerns reduce motivation to enter the professional level. Additionally, the lack of a professional culture and reliance on personal relationships instead of formal contracts increases behavioral and economic risks and undermines the cultural stability of competitions.

From a governance perspective, these challenges collectively indicate that Iran faces a fragmented governance scenario in esports competitions. Each institution, company, or group controls part of the space and acts according to its own interests, without a system of shared rules. The result is an unpredictable, opaque, and individually-driven environment. This situation not only impedes the growth of a competitive, professional esports economy but also fosters institutional distrust among the primary actors.

Stakeholder Participation in the Governance of Iranian Esports

One of the main challenges in governing esports in Iran is the limited involvement of key stakeholders in decision-making. Under the current system, policy-making is largely top-down, and operational actors—including professional players, coaches, clubs, streamers, and companies in the digital gaming sector—have little actual influence over policy or operational standards. Stakeholders are often involved superficially, while real decision-making power remains concentrated within governing institutions.

Studies indicate that stakeholder participation is a key indicator of policy legitimacy and effectiveness (Liu et al., 2024). Governance systems that fail to integrate and reflect the perspectives of diverse stakeholders are prone to adopting unrealistic or inefficient policies (Abanazir, 2022). In Iran’s esports ecosystem, the absence of formal mechanisms for stakeholder representation has resulted in decisions primarily reflecting the views of government policymakers, with limited alignment to the economic, social, and cultural realities of the active community. Recent research in the context of Iranian esports (Pourmarouf & Afrouzeh, 2025; Kelly et al., 2022) confirms this issue, showing that institutional misalignment complicates policy implementation and limits the long-term impact of decisions. For instance, the introduction of new regulations without coordination with game developers or foreign publishers has limited enforceability and often fails in practice, which aligns with international studies on fragmented governance and insufficient stakeholder participation (Henry & Lee, 2004).

One of the key issues in this context is institutional misalignment. Formal decision-making structures have yet to adapt to the networked and digital nature of esports. The ecosystem relies on dynamic interactions, self-organizing networks, and multi-level communications among players, teams, and platforms, whereas Iran’s decision-making processes remain largely linear and hierarchical (Jenny et al., 2017). This structural gap prevents practical knowledge and frontline experience from informing policy, resulting in decisions that are often disconnected from operational realities (Hamari & Sjöblom, 2017).

The lack of stakeholder participation also carries significant economic and investment implications. In the absence of formal representation mechanisms, investors and sponsors face high risks, as they cannot accurately predict how policy decisions will affect project returns, contractual security, or ROI (Seo, 2016). This diminishes private-sector investment incentives and undermines sustainable industry development. Moreover, the absence of official communication channels means that the data and information policymakers rely on are often incomplete, opaque, or based on partial perceptions.

The absence of formal frameworks for stakeholder engagement also undermines the legitimacy of legal decisions and operational contracts. For example, contracts between players, teams, and organizers, in the absence of transparent oversight mechanisms, lack enforceability, leading to increased disputes, prolonged resolution timelines, and potential ineffectiveness of policies. Without legal mechanisms to integrate stakeholders and represent their interests, governance gaps are exacerbated, eroding trust between government institutions and the active community (Abdolmaleki et al., 2025).

In response to this institutional void, groups of esports actors in Iran have self-organized into networks (Aghayi Khan Mohammad et al., 2025). Composed of streamers, coaches, and small league managers, these networks collaborate directly with brands and sponsors to carry out operational activities and manage competitions. While these networks maintain short-term ecosystem dynamism and efficiency, they pose long-term risks of divergence and lack of coordination, as each network operates under its own rules and interests and is never formally integrated (Yaraghi Esfahani & Hajian, 2025). This indicates that symbolic participation, rather than genuine engagement, fosters feelings of institutional exclusion and reduces motivation for formal collaboration (Kaye et al., 2017).

Genuine stakeholder participation not only legitimizes decisions but also improves policy quality, reduces economic and legal risks, and enhances the capacity to localize international standards (Hamari & Sjöblom, 2017). Countries that have successfully developed their esports ecosystems consistently rely on networked, participatory governance models emphasizing transparency and stakeholder representation (Jenny et al., 2017).

Reforming Iran’s governance structure requires redefining the relationship between the state and the digital community. Players, teams, brands, and streamers must be recognized as decision-making partners. Key measures include establishing intermediary bodies to represent stakeholders, drafting legal and contractual frameworks to safeguard rights and responsibilities, and designing networked mechanisms that channel practical knowledge from field actors into policymaking (Abdolmaleki et al., 2025). These steps enable a shift from a “management” paradigm to a “coordination and participation” paradigm, in which legitimacy, effectiveness, and sustainability are grounded in active stakeholder engagement.

Without reconstructing stakeholder participation processes and creating effective, legitimate channels, any policymaking in Iran’s esports sector remains at risk of failure. Reforming this structure is a prerequisite for enhancing social capital, institutional legitimacy, and ecosystem cohesion. The success of any developmental program in Iran depends on harmonizing formal structures, self-organizing networks, and key stakeholders; otherwise, governance will remain superficial, inefficient, and vulnerable (Rostam Zadeh et al., 2019; Yaraghi Esfahani & Hajian, 2025).

Figure 1. The Indigenous Governance Challenge Pattern for E-sports in Iran

Conclusion

The analyses of this study indicate that the governance of esports in Iran faces deep institutional, structural, and cultural challenges that go beyond mere resource limitations or a lack of events. The absence of a central and integrated governance structure has resulted in “islands” of decision-making, undermining the cohesion and efficiency of the ecosystem. This situation not only reduces private-sector investment from an economic perspective but also severely limits social and cultural legitimacy and trust among key stakeholders, including players, coaches, streamers, and teams. A central dimension of governance weakness is the identity ambiguity of esports, which remains caught between classifications as a sport, a technology, or a cultural industry. This ambiguity complicates the development of legal frameworks, competitive standards, and operational regulations, creating conditions for structural instability and conflicts of interest among institutions and stakeholders. Analyses showed that, in the absence of a central authority, decisions are largely sporadic and fragmented. Self-organizing stakeholder networks, while maintaining short-term ecosystem dynamism, contribute to long-term divergence and lack of overall coordination. The study also demonstrated that limited and symbolic participation of stakeholders—including professional players, clubs, streamers, and active companies—is a key barrier to governance legitimacy and effectiveness. The absence of formal representation mechanisms and legitimate communication channels has resulted in political and operational decisions being less grounded in the practical and economic realities of the ecosystem. This not only increases investment risk but also reduces the motivation of actors to engage with formal structures, thereby widening the gap between policymaking and implementation. From a theoretical perspective, the current situation can be analyzed in terms of institutional asynchrony, a legitimacy crisis, and fragmented governance. The government’s hierarchical and linear structures are unable to respond to the networked, dynamic, and multi-level nature of esports. The lack of an intermediary body with legal legitimacy and professional independence disrupts coordination between governmental, private, and civil sectors. Furthermore, the absence of transparent frameworks for competitions, specialized arbitration, media ownership, and financial security undermines trust and weakens the competitive economy of esports. Overall, these findings emphasize the necessity of reconstructing the institutional and network architecture of governance. Establishing a central body that integrates both regulatory and professional functions, developing transparent legal and contractual frameworks, and designing participatory mechanisms that provide genuine stakeholder representation can enable harmonization between formal structures, self-organizing networks, and field-level actors. Such an approach strengthens legitimacy, trust, cohesion, and efficiency in the ecosystem, creating a stable foundation for the economic, social, and cultural development of esports. Without this reconstruction, any developmental program in this sector will continue to face serious institutional, structural, and cultural constraints, leaving governance superficial and vulnerable.

Research Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This study primarily focused on interviews with key domestic actors and stakeholders, and access to certain governmental and private institutions was limited. Consequently, some strategic and policy perspectives at the macro level may not be fully reflected. Esports are inherently networked and dynamic, and interactions and relationships among stakeholders change rapidly. This characteristic may cause certain findings to become outdated in the short term or alter the way stakeholders interact. Future research could involve broader participation from government bodies, publishing companies, and international organizations to provide a more comprehensive and precise analysis of macro-level governance. Based on this analysis, practical solutions prioritized according to feasibility include strengthening collaboration between governmental and private sectors to facilitate access to data and decision-making resources, developing legal and policy frameworks tailored to Iran’s cultural and social context, establishing educational and promotional mechanisms to enhance social acceptance of esports and address identity-related challenges, and leveraging successful international models, such as those from South Korea, China, and Poland, as adaptable references for Iran. Moreover, clear pathways for guiding future research include conducting extensive comparative studies with countries that have effective governance structures, examining cultural representation and social acceptance of esports in Iran in greater depth, assessing the impact of domestic and international policies on stakeholder interactions and networks, and designing actionable and documented strategies to improve macro-level governance frameworks. These measures aim to strengthen legal and policy structures on a solid cultural and social foundation and ensure that future research has a clear and actionable direction.

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank all those who supported us in conducting this research.

Conflicts of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Funding

The current study received no financial from any organization or institution.

Statement on the Use of AI

We only used artificial intelligence for translation into English.