Esports on Trial: Is It Really a Sport?

Esports has skyrocketed in popularity, with events like the “Olympic Esports Week” in Singapore and the NBA’s NBA2K league leading the charge. Over 175 colleges now endorse esports teams, with some even granting scholarships.

The Title IX Controversy

However, the term “sport” is under scrutiny. On February 17, U.S. District Judge Carlos Mendoza declared that esports does not fit the Title IX definition of a sport, a law that promotes gender equality in collegiate sports and broader education. This decision is a landmark, being the first federal written judgment on esports concerning Title IX.

The Case at Hand: Navarro v. FIT

Six male rowers from the Florida Institute of Technology (FIT) are challenging the institution for alleged Title IX violations. The conflict ignited when FIT decided to dissolve several sports teams in 2022, a move the rowers claim would save the university around USD 1.8 million. Their primary demand is the immediate return of the men’s rowing team.

FIT’s Sporting Legacy

Established in 1968, FIT’s rowing team has a rich history of victories and has even produced Olympic athletes. The rowers, hoping to escalate this to a class action, primarily chose FIT for its esteemed rowing reputation.

The Gender Disparity Debate

The rowers presented statistics showing a significant gap between male enrollment and male athletes at FIT. For the academic year 2018-19, while males constituted 71.3% of the student body, they made up only 64.2% of the athletes. This discrepancy indicated a shortage of 132 athletic opportunities for men, a trend that continued in the following years.

FIT’s Counterargument: The Esports Defense

FIT responded by incorporating esports athletes into their 2021-22 data, which dramatically reduced the opportunity gap to just 0.16%. They underlined that their esports program, which will start offering scholarships by 2023, is equivalent to other sports at the university.

The Legal Standoff

The rowers, with legal support, contested FIT’s calculations. They stressed that no court has ever classified esports as a sport under Title IX, emphasizing that esports doesn’t possess the athletic rigor to qualify.

Judge Mendoza’s Verdict

Referencing a 2012 case, Biediger v. Quinnipiac University, where competitive cheerleading was n’t recognized as a sport, Judge Mendoza drew parallels. He asserted that esports, unlike competitive cheerleading, lacks athletic demands. He also highlighted the lack of a governing body for esports and its commercial nature.

The Implications

While Navarro v. FIT is still pending, its outcome could redefine the future of esports in the context of Title IX.

Navarro et al v. Florida Institute of Technology, Inc., Case No. 6:22-CV-01950 (M.D. Fla. 2023)