The second edition of Les Matinales de l’esport parisien, organized at the Maison de l’esport with the support of the City of Paris, the Île-de-France Region, and the Ministry of Sports, focused on a topic that has yet to be explored in depth: the geopolitical challenges of esports. While video game competitions attract millions of spectators and generate billions in revenue, they go far beyond the realm of entertainment. Esports is becoming a strategic tool for states, a vehicle for cultural, diplomatic, and economic influence. More than just a leisure activity, esports now appears to be a mirror of contemporary tensions, where influence, diplomacy, and competition for cultural hegemony are all at stake.
Olivier Mauco, president of the European Video Game Observatory, was present alongside Hannah Belliche from the Institut Français and Sylvie Le Meaux, president of the e-sports working group at the National Olympic Committee, for a round table discussion moderated by Nicolas Besombes, deputy director of Paris Cité University and administrator of France Esport.
Esports as a lever for soft power and hard power
Several countries have understood the potential influence of this new space. Saudi Arabia, China, and South Korea are investing heavily to increase their international influence. With its “Vision 2030” program, Saudi Arabia has established itself as a key player, already organizing the Esports Nations Cup in 2026 and the Esports Olympic Games scheduled for 2027. These initiatives place esports within a strategy comparable to that which made traditional sports a major diplomatic tool.
For stakeholders, esports embodies both soft power, by shaping the collective imagination, and a form of hard power, due to the scale of public and private investment involved. States use it in two ways: internationally, to project a dynamic and modern image, and internally, to mobilize their youth and strengthen national cohesion.
The boundaries between virtual and real, imaginary and material are becoming less and less relevant when considering the power issues surrounding video games and digital technology, especially as investments are being made in territories, particularly in spaces where the games are played (stadiums, trade shows, local events).
Private players and the power of publishers
Game publishers play a central role in this new balance of power. Tencent, Activision Blizzard, and Ubisoft, owners of intellectual property, operate almost like global sports federations. They control access to competitions and wield considerable diplomatic power. Tensions with the International Olympic Committee illustrate this confrontation: while the IOC boasts a century of existence and a federal model, publishers have much higher revenues and impose their own logic. So why try to replicate administrative structures that were necessary to organize and internationalize local practices, when gaming is de facto globalized, organized online, and managed live by publishers?
This power struggle is amplified by the strategy of countries such as Saudi Arabia, which are investing simultaneously in publishers, teams, competition organizers, and broadcasters. This vertical integration raises questions about competitive integrity: how can the fairness of a competition organized, financed, and broadcast by the same state actor be guaranteed?
France between cultural diplomacy and economic influence
Faced with these dynamics, France is attempting to position itself as a credible player. Its esports ecosystem is internationally recognized for its structure and competitive successes. The Institut français has integrated esports into its cultural diplomacy, supporting the promotion of national expertise and assisting emerging structures on the international scene.
This diplomacy is based on three pillars: supporting French companies at major international events, cooperating with local ecosystems, particularly in Africa, and organizing events and tournaments designed to reach new audiences.
Flagship projects, such as the boot camp organized in South Korea between the French team Vitality and the South Korean organization Gen.G, demonstrate France’s desire to use esports as a tool for cultural and diplomatic dialogue.
An economic model under pressure
Economically speaking, esports still suffers from a fragile model. Long dependent on private funding, sponsors, and fundraising, it struggles to achieve structural profitability. The massive influx of sovereign capital, particularly from Saudi Arabia, is disrupting this landscape. While this funding guarantees rapid growth, it also creates a worrying dependency.
Clubs and organizations find themselves caught up in a situation where the concentration of capital threatens the sector’s autonomy and promotes state control over the entire value chain.
The parallel with the financialization of soccer in the 2000s provides an opportunity to open clubs up to the market in order to attract investment, shift to sustainable profitability models, and thus have a more competitive and less concentrated esports sector. However, such a strategy raises the question of private investment in Europe, with its more limited constraints and volumes.
The question of values and inclusion
One of the sensitive points of discussion concerned the values conveyed by esports. Unlike Olympic sports, esports has not been built around a set of universal values. These values are constructed by its stakeholders, whether they be publishers, clubs, or competition organizers. Some values are shared with traditional sports—friendship, respect, excellence—but there are also specific issues at stake: digital inclusion, diversity, and gender equality.
Several initiatives were mentioned, such as the organization of women-only tournaments in Africa and the “Radiance” project in Belgium, which aimed to promote the role of women in esports. These initiatives are part of a broader strategy to make the sector more representative of the reality of video gaming, where the practice is in fact gender-balanced, but where competitions remain predominantly male.
Esports is also a practice that is now gendered, with separate men’s and women’s leagues, which is rather surprising and difficult to justify in terms of performance, and inconsistent given the strong feminization of video gaming. This could be an opportunity to move beyond the reproduction of 20th-century sports models.
Between institutionalization and protest
Finally, the round table discussed the process of institutionalizing esports. Originally an independent activity practiced by gamers, esports is now being overtaken by federal and Olympic logic. This normalization is causing tension: should a pyramid model be adopted, similar to traditional sports, or should an alternative model be invented that is closer to digital and community culture?
Here again, institutional and organizational engineering is complex, as many players from different worlds must learn to understand each other before they can make decisions.
While institutionalization risks curtailing certain freedoms, esports also remains a potential space for protest. Examples such as that of Hong Kong player “Blitzchung” remind us that competitions are visible platforms on a global scale, where individuals can still express their disagreements, despite attempts at control.
Finally, the sportification of pastimes, a major civilizational process, has found a new form in esports: let’s not forget that esports was born during debates about the supposed violence of video games. Is fragging killing? The choice of esports games to be covered by the media, particularly for the IOC, is crucial. The recent acquisition of EA leaves open the possibility of streaming soccer or FPS games, ensuring that Saudi Arabia will have compatible content for its e-Olympics 2027.
Conclusion
This round table discussion has highlighted one clear fact: esports has become a new arena for symbolic and diplomatic confrontation. It brings together cultural, economic, and political issues of the highest order. Saudi Arabia, China, and South Korea are already redrawing the global esports map with their strategic investments, while Europe and the United States are seeking to reposition themselves.
France, with its recognized ecosystem, has the assets to influence this new geopolitical landscape, provided it can overcome the challenges of financing and structuring, with the support of its European partners, who have been largely absent from the discussions.