By Bradyn Rogers, University of North Alabama
Esports, or a form of competitive activities in which gameplay, player input, and performance are mediated through electronic and human–computer interface systems, continue to expand in mainstream consciousness globally (Hamari & Sjöblom, 2017). As the esports industry grows in the United States, collegiate esports has experienced rapid growth, with universities launching varsity teams, academic programs, and competitive infrastructures. Despite this growth, collegiate esports remains in its formative stage and faces a diverse range of governance challenges. These problems range from pressing issues affecting the space such as monetization, doping, E-doping, and more. Among these challenges, gambling represents a particularly pressing concern that warrants proactive governance before integrity failures emerge.
The normalization and accessibility of gambling, driven by mobile betting applications, loot-box mechanics, sportsbook integrations within streaming platforms, and broader cultural acceptance of wagering, have contributed to a surge in gambling participation in younger demographics. Esports fans, and particularly esports athletes, have been identified as disproportionately at risk for problem gambling, with a 2025 study finding elevated rates of gambling involvement and associated psychological vulnerabilities in this population (Nguyen et al., 2025). Collegiate players, staff, and spectators therefore fall within a demographic uniquely susceptible to gambling-related harms. These concerns extend beyond individual behavior; the intersection of esports and gambling raises additional risks related to intellectual property conflicts between game publishers and third-party betting platforms, the prevalence of underage participants, and heightened incentives for match fixing in environments lacking strong regulatory oversight.
Understanding the governance landscape requires attention to the major collegiate esports bodies responsible for structuring competition. Two of the most established organizations are the National Association for Collegiate Esports (NACE) and the National Esports Collegiate Conference (NECC). Both serve as leading frameworks for institutional competition, competitive integrity, and the external legitimacy of collegiate esports. These organizations must navigate stakeholder expectations that include protecting student participants, strengthening relationships with game developers who maintain ultimate control over esports titles, and positioning collegiate esports as a credible counterpart to traditional collegiate athletics. As gambling continues to influence both professional sports and NCAA-governed competition, collegiate esports must take deliberate steps to recognize and regulate gambling before widespread issues arise.
Currently, gambling-specific regulation in collegiate esports is sparse. The NECC rulebook does not directly address gambling, referencing only collusive behavior such as intentionally losing matches for compensation. While this acknowledges one manifestation of gambling-related misconduct, the absence of explicit gambling policies leaves considerable ambiguity regarding acceptable behavior. NACE provides slightly clearer restrictions in its code of conduct by prohibiting gambling-related names or brands from appearing on players, teams, or uniforms, yet it does not outline standards for gambling participation, reporting obligations, or educational requirements. In contrast, the NCAA maintains stringent prohibitions that bar student-athletes and athletics personnel from wagering on any NCAA-sanctioned sport, regardless of legality. The NCAA’s rigor underscores the comparatively underdeveloped regulatory landscape in collegiate esports.
Although collegiate esports has not yet experienced publicly documented gambling scandals or match-fixing incidents, both professional sports and professional esports offer clear warnings of the risks. The National Basketball Association (NBA) recently uncovered a widespread gambling ring involving former players Chauncey Billups and Terry Rozier, prompting ongoing investigations into professional and collegiate basketball. Similarly, an entire professional League of Legends region, the Vietnam Championship Series, was halted due to a large-scale match-fixing scandal involving 32 players across eight teams, ultimately forcing the cancellation of half the competitive season. These cases illustrate that gambling-related misconduct can escalate rapidly and jeopardize the legitimacy of competition when robust governance mechanisms are absent.
Given the current policy gaps, collegiate esports governing bodies have a critical opportunity to establish preventative structures before the ecosystem experiences similar crises. Updating rulebooks to include comprehensive gambling regulations is a necessary first step. Such regulations should clearly define prohibited behaviors, reporting procedures, conflict-of-interest standards, and disciplinary measures. Additionally, governing bodies should implement mandatory education initiatives modeled after the NCAA’s “Draw the Line” program, ensuring that players, coaches, administrators, and fans understand the risks, legal implications, and integrity consequences associated with gambling. Anonymous reporting platforms, integrity hotlines, and partnerships with esports integrity organizations would further strengthen prevention and detection efforts. These measures, taken collectively, position collegiate esports to adopt a proactive rather than reactive stance.
The broader future of collegiate esports governance, including any potential alignment with NCAA standards, depends on the development of credible, enforceable policies that protect competitive integrity and participant welfare. By addressing gambling concerns early and comprehensively, collegiate esports can serve as a model for responsible governance within the global esports ecosystem. Proactive regulation not only safeguards student-athletes and institutional reputations but also contributes to the long-term legitimacy, sustainability, and professionalization of collegiate esports.
References
Hamari, J., & Sjöblom, M. (2017). What is eSports and why do people watch it?
Internet Research, 27(2), 211–232.
Nguyen, R., Lail, Z., Vieira, J. L., McGrath, D. S., & Kim, H. S. (2025).
Comparative Analysis of Video Gamers, Esports Spectators, and Esports Athletes on
Gambling, Gaming, and Psychological Characteristics. Journal of Gambling Studies,
1–16. https://doi-org.ezproxy.una.edu/10.1007/s10899-025-10454-3
