*Aman Gupta

The enactment of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 (NSGA) marks a watershed moment for Indian sports regulation, including emerging sectors such as e-sports. While the NSGA prescribes internal governance standards for National Sports Federations (NSFs), it remains silent on substantive criteria for recognition, unlike the earlier National Sports Development Code, 2011. This gap is particularly pressing in the case of e-sports, which, despite being formally recognised under the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (PROGA), lacks a single universally acknowledged international federation. The existence of multiple international and domestic bodies raises questions about which entity qualifies as the legitimate representative for e-sports under the NSGA. Drawing on global and Indian experiences, this article argues that detailed recognition criteria—beyond procedural compliance—are essential. It suggests that Indian e-sports organisations may carve legitimacy through grassroots development and stakeholder protection, even if universal international recognition remains elusive.

Introduction

The past few weeks have been exciting for researchers in the Indian sports governance landscape. With the Parliament enacting two laws (and one amendment) related to sports and online gaming, a radical change has been introduced in a sector that has otherwise proven resistant to legislative regulation. 

A lot has been written about the new laws representing a positive step for the overall growth and development of India’s sporting culture, as well as the areas of concern regarding the legislation. I focus on one such area in this blog: the process  of recognising National Sports Federations (‘NSFs’) as National Sports Bodies (‘NSBs’). In the article, using the example of e-sports, I highlight how the norms under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 (‘NSGA’), are presently insufficient in guiding the recognition of NSFs. Second, I discuss the global and Indian experiences regarding the development of e-sports organisations along with their efforts towards recognition and legitimacy in the third part. Using these experiences, I will highlight the lacunae that exist in the present scheme and conclude with my thoughts on the way forward. 

Before I come to the substantive part of the article, I am aware of the significant discussion about the correct terminology between e-sports and esports. The industry preference is the latter, while legislation, such as the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (‘PROGA’), refers to the former. For this article, I have used the term ‘e-sports’, as it is referred to in the PROGA. 

Recognition of NSFs under the NSGA

The recognition process under the NSGA provides that there shall be an NSF for each designated sport. Every NSF must be recognised and affiliated with the international sports governing body, which, in the case of non-Olympic or non-Paralympic sports, is to be an international federation (‘IF’) that regulates the sport at the international level. The requirement of recognition by IF as a pre-condition to be recognised as an NSF does not apply to designated sports without an IF. Furthermore, NSGA provides that every NSB, which includes NSFs, shall comply with procedures such as the formation of various committees, representation of women on the Executive Committee, and holding elections in a timely manner, which are primarily procedural and focused on the internal functioning of NSFs. In terms of granting recognition to an NSF as an NSB, the NSGA does not provide any detailed considerations that must be taken into account by the National Sports Board beyond the compliance mentioned above. 

Two issues immediately become apparent. First is regarding the process of deciding which entity can be genuinely designated as an IF in the context of non-Olympic and non-Paralympic Sports. While this is easy in some instances, such as the International Cricket Council for cricket, which has recently been re-introduced into the Olympics, there are sports, especially emerging sports, that may have no IFs or multiple IFs. The NSGA is currently silent on the norms for recognising IFs and assumes that there is only one IF for each sport. 

Second, beyond the procedural and internal functioning norms listed above, the NSGA is silent on the substantive elements required to be fulfilled by sports bodies to be recognised as NSFs and NSBs. This differs from the detailed procedural and substantive recognition criteria provided under the erstwhile National Sports Development Code 2011 (‘Code’). The code included, in addition to internal governance mechanisms and procedural requirements, substantive elements such as the organisation of annual championships, along with factors like all-India spread, undisputed status as an apex body in India, and role and contribution in promotion and development of sports in India. Furthermore, for disciplines not included within the Olympics, Commonwealth Games and/or Asian Games, additional factors, such as popularity, availability of infrastructure, affordability and likelihood of inclusion in major international games, were to be considered. This is  missing in the present framework, and hopefully, a detailed criterion consisting of substantial requirements will be prescribed within the regulations. 

These questions attain prominence in e-sports, which has been formally recognised under the PROGA. PROGA defines e-sports as an online game that is, inter alia, played as a part of multi-sports events, is recognised under the NSGA, and is registered with the Authority on Online Gaming under the PROGA. Under the PROGA, to recognise and promote e-sports, the Central Government will coordinate with recognised sporting federations to integrate e-sports within the larger sporting initiatives. 

E-sports: Global and Indian Experiences

Unlike traditional sports, wherein in most cases a single IF has emerged through factors of time, politics, and practices of the participants, no single universally recognised IF has emerged in e-sports. In a bid to ensure legitimacy for e-sports and to regulate the same, several international bodies have emerged globally, including the International E-sports Federation (‘IESF’), the Global E-sports Federation (‘GEF’), and the E-sports Integrity Commission, to name a few. However, beyond the aforementioned factors mentioned hereinabove, unlike traditional sports, legitimacy and recognition are not automatically guaranteed for international e-sports organisations due to three factors: 

1. e-sports being an umbrella term to refer to a variety of video-games in a variety of genres; 
2. absence of an organised pyramidical structure, unlike traditional sports, due to presence of stakeholders such as developers and publishers; and 
3. violence contained in certain video-games that are popular e-sports. 

The first issue prevents the emergence of monopolistic bodies due to the number of video-game titles covered. The second issue arises from the e-sports ecosystem, which comprises stakeholders not found in traditional sports: game developers and publishers. Unlike traditional sports, where intellectual property rights do not exist in the game itself, one must obtain a license from the game developers and publishers to organise e-sports events. Thus, the developers and publishers can set the conditions that the organisers must comply with. These considerations often arise due to economic interests but also leave unanswered questions about the responsibility for governance issues, such as match-fixing, doping, and cheating, as well as ensuring the grassroots development of e-sports. It has been pointed out that the bodies are unlikely to achieve legitimacy due to publishers being unwilling to give up autonomy over business decisions. This is also likely to be mirrored in the national domains, with governments and e-sports bodies unlikely to be in a position to ensure compliance with stakeholders due to the global nature of e-sports and the economic concerns of publishers. On the third issue, governments and international sporting bodies do not want to be seen as endorsing violence. This issue has surfaced in the past, with violent games considered not in accordance with the Olympics’ values. However, in a positive step towards granting legitimacy to e-sports, the IOC decided to partner with the Saudi Olympic and Paralympic Committee, along with the Esports World Cup Foundation, to organise the Olympic Esports Games in 2027. 

In several other jurisdictions, governments have taken proactive steps and recognised bodies that regulate e-sports domestically. One example is the Korea E-sports Association (‘KESPA’), which emerged as the governing body due to government support and was recognised by the Korean Sports & Olympic Committee as an associate member. In China, where the state directly influences publishers and developers, e-sports are partially regulated by government ministries. 

In India, the movement to gain government recognition has led to the emergence of several bodies, including the Esports Federation of India (‘ESFI’), the Skillhub Online Games Federation (‘SOGF’), and the Federation of Electronic Sports Association India (‘FEAI’). Out of the three, the former two appear to be affiliated with international bodies, with ESFI being affiliated with IESF and with the Asian E-sports Federation (‘AESF’) and has been responsible for selecting players representing India in previous tournaments, such as the 2022 Asian Games. As per reports, SOGF was also recently granted membership to both IESF and GEF. 

Legitimacy Strategies

In the absence of legitimacy based on historicity and the traditional pyramidical structures, experiences in other jurisdictions show that e-sports organisations pursue different legitimacy strategies. In jurisdictions where no rules exist, this involves mimetic isomorphism: mirroring the methods of the traditional sports organisations on one hand, such as establishing membership, organising competitions, claiming to represent stakeholders’ interests, while also engaging in other narrative-building exercises, such as forming connections with governmental and non-governmental stakeholders and engaging in public relations. E-sport organisations also pursue legitimacy by finding a niche area within which to operate, such as stakeholder advocacy and grassroots development of esports. In other jurisdictions, this involves coercive isomorphism, with the state laying down the norms that must be complied with by the e-sports organisation before it is officially recognised. 

The structures of the international organisations reflect the structures of traditional international federations, indicating mimetic isomorphism in their pursuit of legitimacy, while also tying up with video-game publishers as a part of their legitimacy strategy. For instance, IESF and GEF consist of various committees dealing with athletes’ rights, regulatory issues, membership, audit, risk and governance concerns. IESF is a signatory to the World Anti-Doping Code. GEF, on the other hand, has partnered with various game developers and publishers, Olympic movement members, major game organisers, and United Nations organisations. In 2024, both bodies created the E-sports Leadership Group to facilitate collaboration. 

In India, an initial analysis reveals that all three bodies display varying degrees of isomorphism. The author was able to locate SOGF’s bylaws upon undertaking a search of its website, along with a Google search. The by-laws contain detailed criteria for membership (with different categories of membership for different stakeholders), suspension and termination of membership criteria, governing board, general assembly and special assembly procedure, formation of various committees, term limits and representation of athletes (including female athletes) on the governing board. The author was unable to determine whether the detailed rules and regulations of ESFI and FEAI are publicly available. However, it is presumed that ESFI complied with IESF and AESF’s regulations and by-laws. Similarly, although the author was unable to locate additional details, FEAI explicitly mentions having a regulatory structure with rules and regulations governing player protection and anti-doping regulations. 

Way Forward

In the context of the aforementioned questions, when viewing e-sports, one can see the concerns. Despite the existence of multiple international bodies that seek to regulate and govern e-sports, there is currently no single international federation that has achieved either undisputed status or the IOC’s recognition. Would this mean that an NSF for e-sports fall within the exception provided in Section 3(2) of the NSGA? Or would there be multiple IFs recognised under the NSGA, and thereby recognition will be given to multiple NSFs (and multiple NSBs) for e-sports? If one NSF is to be recognised, it would mean that one IF is given legitimacy over the other. However, the NSGA does not provide the guiding factors which would determine this decision. Recently, there have been conflicting reports regarding the status of affiliation and affiliation levels between various Indian e-sports bodies and their international counterparts. With both ESFI and SOGF being affiliated with international e-sports bodies, given that international counterparts currently lack universal recognition, we arrive at a stalemate about which international e-sport federation and thereby, which Indian e-sports federation should be given primacy in terms of recognition under the NSGA. 

Secondly, if no IF is not recognised, then, as per the NSGA, all of the aforementioned Indian bodies have the potential to be recognised as the NSF for e-sports, provided they can achieve compliance with the procedural and internal governance requirements. Again, the NSGA does not provide insight into the process that will guide the decision of the National Sports Board. What happens if multiple e-sports federations comply with the internal governance requirements? Which e-sport federation would then be selected? Due to the lack of clarity in the NSGA, this question must be addressed through the regulations. 

It is imperative that the regulations prescribe criteria that go beyond mere procedural requirements and, similar to the Code, lay down substantive conditions to be observed by NSFs before recognition is granted. Given the aforementioned challenges faced in developing sports for an apex body to emerge, it would be worthwhile to consider different considerations for such conditions, rather than recognition as the undisputed status of an apex sporting body.  Furthermore, a method for determining the IF in cases of non-Olympic and non-Paralympic sports should be considered, especially when no single body possesses undisputed status. 

It is worth noting that even if recognition is not possible for e-sports bodies, they can still play a significant role in identifying and addressing areas of market failure. It is unlikely that global game developers and publishers will accept intrusion into their commercial concerns, and thus, a universally recognised global body is unlikely to emerge. Hence, e-sport organisations in India are likely to be in a strong position to focus on grassroots development of sports, managing stakeholder rights and reducing risks associated with video-gaming, and assisting the government in developing e-sports within the country. This would also be possible by bringing their activities in line with the work of National Sports Promotion Bodies and the potential recognised federations. 

*Mr. Aman Gupta is Assistant Professor, Law and Technology at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. Prior to joining NUJS, he taught in National Law University, Jodhpur and has also worked in the banking and finance and sports law teams of reputed law firms.

He would like to thank Ms. Aahna Mehrotra, Ms. Riya Rajkumar Sharma, and Mr. Achyuth Jayagopal for their insights on the piece.