Evidence Relevant to the Classification of Esports as Sport: A Narrative Review from a Psychological and Neuroscientific Perspective

Background: Competitive video gaming (esports) is now professionalized and institutionalized, yet whether it should be classified as sport remains disputed.
Purpose: Written from a psychological and neuroscientific perspective, this narrative review evaluates evidence relevant to five dimensions commonly used to characterize sport (competition, rule-governance, institutionalization, skill, and physicality) and distinguishes evidence of competitive expertise from the stronger claim of sport status.
Methods: PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched (January 2000 to September 2026) and supplemented by citation tracing and dated governance documents. Evidence was graded by design and by population (professional or high-ranked esports players vs. general or action-video-game players); reporting followed SANRA.
Results: Esports-specific studies document sport-like stress, coping, and mental-toughness processes, and meta-analytic expert–amateur differences in spatial cognition and attention (Hedges' g = 0.37). Predominantly cross-sectional neuroimaging studies report expertise-associated neural differences, but pre-existing characteristics also predict skill acquisition. Gameplay produces modest autonomic changes and energy expenditure only slightly above rest. Institutionalization is extensive, although governance remains fragmented and Olympic integration is paused.
Conclusion: The evidence supports esports as a domain of competitive cognitive-motor expertise, but expertise alone does not establish sport status; the verdict depends on the weight given to physicality, and a graded (polymorphic) conceptualization fits the evidence best.