Esports was never apolitical, we just pretended it was (and we can’t any longer)

How does international politics affect esport? The simple answer is: the same way it affects every other aspect of your life, because everything is politics. 

It shapes the rights you have, the prices you pay, the stability of the systems around you, and even the small, everyday things you don’t think twice about — like how many games you can play in a day. This is why the scene should care more, and why this shouldn’t just stay in the background of discussions around esports. 

When announcements about events, locations, or partnerships are made, they shouldn’t be taken at face value as just “good news for the scene,” but read more carefully for what they imply beyond the competition itself. When tournament organizers announce a hosting venue, they place a global community in a specific political and social context, and that choice matters. 

And ignoring that context doesn’t make it disappear; it just means dealing with the consequences later, when it’s already impacting the very community that this industry is built on. And instead of pretending esports sits outside of politics, it’s probably time we look at how deeply it’s already entangled in it — sometimes more directly than others.

And this influence isn’t always tied to large-scale conflicts or economic pressure.

In South Korea, mandatory military service can interrupt players’ careers at their peak, while in other regions, limited infrastructure — from unstable internet to lack of hardware — prevents players from even entering the scene. Even for already established players, living abroad often comes with Visa requirements and legal constraints can directly affect their ability to compete.

The broader instability in South West Asia and North Africa, including Israel’s ongoing expansionistic aims in neighboring countries, such as Palestine, has contributed to heightened regional tensions. The conflicts are affecting humanitarian conditions in the region first, and also international events often hosted in nearby countries, like Saudi Arabia.

In 2026, escalating hostilities in the region led to direct consequences for major sporting events. Following security concerns over regional instability, Formula 1 officially cancelled both the Bahrain Grand Prix and the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix scheduled for April 2026. And when events at that scale are removed from a calendar, it signals risk in a way that markets and organizers cannot ignore. 

Similarly, the Esports World Cup, scheduled to take place in Riyadh later this year, quickly became the subject of speculation. 

In just a few days, rumors of a postponement — or even cancellation — began circulating. However, reports on April 15th indicated that “the EWC 2026 is currently not planned to be postponed,” according to Gabe News. 

Before we talk about why cancelling or even postponing EWC would be a significant blow to the esports industry, it’s important to take a step back and examine Saudi Arabia’s policies regarding esports. In the past few years, the country has heavily invested in gaming and esports as part of broader economic diversification efforts, and these initiatives are widely recognized as part of a sportswashing strategy — meaning using high-profile international events to reshape global perception while maintaining controversial domestic policies. 

And so the EWC sits at the center of this push: offering massive prize pools that are difficult for esports organizations to ignore even as concerns around human rights and discrimination remain part of the conversation around the event. 

And that’s the uncomfortable part, because esports needs that money.

Even decades after its conception, the esports industry is still struggling to find sustainable revenue models, and for many companies in the scene, profitability remains out of reach. So events like the EWC are becoming, in practice, almost mandatory for survival, raising the question of whether they are “good” or “bad” for the ecosystem.

On one hand, it’s funding growth, stability, and opportunities almost never seen before. On the other, it ties the future of esports to a region that is politically volatile and ethically questioned, and — as we’ve already seen with F1 — that comes with risk.

“It’s crazy that I’m talking about this on this channel about esports coverage, but I guess that’s what we’ve gotten to,” said content creator Travis Gafford, mentioning the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, in a video explaining why he wouldn’t be covering EWC.

“Everyone can participate in the competition, and no one will be discriminated against. That’s a promise we can give,” said EWC Foundation CEO, Ralf Reichert, to the BBC before adding a note. “In every country in the world, there are different local habits and cultural norms, which you need to adhere to. So what we’re telling everyone is, don’t be explicit. Act locally to respect the local culture.”

And so the question of “should these tournaments exist elsewhere” becomes less about feasibility and more about priority. Do we expect esports to self-regulate based on political alignment, or do we accept that capital will flow from wherever it is available? And more importantly, does the average viewer even factor this in when watching?

For most audiences, esports is still just entertainment, a niche part of an occasional hobby. But that disconnection across the whole industry matters a lot because it reflects how crucial decision-making situations at the top-level don’t even reach the audience the tournament organizers fight so hard for. 

While the current edition of EWC is apparently not being canceled, the political tension around the region can’t be overlooked — especially when big players, like the United States, are still looming and supporting the local conflict for its own strategic interests. 

And speaking about the US, recent domestic policies often have international consequences, and as those policies shift, they directly affect global industries like esports. Visa regulations, international relations, and trade policies all influence who can enter the country, who can compete, and how events are organized — but most importantly, who wants to attend them. 

In esports, where international travel is frequent and often arranged on tight timelines, that friction becomes part of the process. Entry into the country can depend on approval timelines that don’t align with tournament schedules, and even small delays can ripple outward, affecting practice, preparation, and ultimately competition — you end up with a system where participation is always conditional. 

Not impossible, but never fully stable. 

We’ve already seen parallels in traditional sports, with the upcoming FIFA World Cup 2026 raising concerns about ticketing, accessibility, and, especially, visa processes for international participants, as The New Yorker writes. And as those concerns grow, it’s easy to see how similar issues could impact esports events, where players often need to travel on short notice across multiple countries throughout a single season — as in the 2026 League of Legends World Championship, held in the US. 

Riot Games, organizer of the event, is aware of this reality and has adapted around it several times before. Head of League of Legends Esports, Chris Greeley, explained during First Stand 2026 that Visa issues have become a recurring part of international events, with contingency plans in place to manage last-minute complications. However, these solutions remain reactive by nature, addressing problems only after they arise rather than preventing them altogether.

And while these issues may seem less immediate than active conflict, they still play a significant role in shaping how and where esports can operate. 

“Six out of eight rosters are struggling with visa issues,” said Tanner “Damonte” Damonte, coach for Shopify Rebels, in an interview with Sheep Esports at the beginning of 2026. 

“Due to all the issues with the US travel for foreigners right now, even if you have all your papers in order… let’s just say you don’t want to risk it,” said a Redditor to fans wanting to attend the LoL Esports World Championship later this year in Allan, Texas — and they’re not the only ones expressing concerns around the country’s current climate.  

Beyond logistics, there is also a question of who feels welcome to attend in the first place. Recent state-level policies in the US targeting LGBTQAI+ communities have raised concerns around inclusion and safety. And not to mention international attendees, who may not be familiar with the local situation, close to 1 in 5 American gamers identify as queer, according to research by GLAAD in its 2024 report.

This is where publishers and tournament organizers need to be far more deliberate than they currently are. Choosing a location can become a statement about what risks you’re willing to pass on to players, staff, and fans. When political conditions can directly affect safety, accessibility, or basic participation, treating venue selection as neutral feels disingenuous.

While some destinations should raise alarms rather than become the next destination, sometimes you can’t predict what will happen in a year or two. But right now, it feels like safety and ethical considerations are only addressed after problems surface and are not given a proper solution.

And sometimes it feels like we’re acting like nothing is happening at all.

As esports seeks to grow closer to mainstream sports or entertainment structures, it inherits the same political friction that traditional sports have dealt with for decades. The difference is that esports is moving into that reality much faster, with less institutional protection and fewer historical precedents to build off of.

Esports is still trying to define how much of this it is responsible for, and how much of it it can ignore, but these tensions continue to affect millions of lives directly, through conflict, economic instability, and human rights concerns, and the minimum that the esports industry can do is be aware and address the audience’s worries directly. Vice versa, entertained audiences need to remember that even watching their favorite co-streamer shouting as their favorite team wins a game is political.

Author’s note: This article only touches on a small portion of the ongoing conflicts and political dynamics shaping our current world. It focuses on some of the more visible and widely discussed situations — particularly within a Western perspective — and does not fully capture the many regions, communities, and minorities affected by similar circumstances. Stay informed.