Legislative Acts

Esports Development Basic Act

The Esports Development Basic Act draft, championed by Legislator Ju-Chun Ko and Legislator Lo Ting-wei, aims to build a durable, cross-ministry governance framework for Taiwan’s esports industry. On June 10, 2026, the Legislative Yuan’s Education and Culture Committee held a public hearing on the draft. On July 30, the committee began reviewing the bill, but the session paused amid procedural disputes over whether a single sport warrants its own dedicated law. Ko argues that Taiwan, a cornerstone of the global esports supply chain, cannot rely on subsidies alone and needs a framework act that establishes cross-ministry coordination, local participation, and talent development.

Why Taiwan Needs an Esports Basic Act

Some argue that since the Ministry of Sports is already preparing to increase subsidies and has invested for years, a dedicated law is unnecessary. Ko responds that subsidies alone are not enough for esports to thrive.

A complete esports event involves far more than players and equipment: it also requires venues, broadcast production, directors, OBS technical staff, network engineering, data analysis, and even publisher licensing. Without a clear legal mandate, who is responsible for cross-ministry coordination? Who integrates central and local resources? Who builds venues and cultivates talent? Subsidies meet immediate needs but cannot build lasting institutions.

In November 2017, the Legislative Yuan already passed in third reading an amendment to the Sports Industry Development Act that formally recognized esports as a sports industry; the amendment was promulgated on November 29 that year. Whether esports is a sport has long been answered in law. The real question is whether, nearly a decade later, Taiwan has built the institutional environment for players to develop with confidence and for the industry to keep growing.

Ko points to South Korea as an example: Korea first placed esports under its Game Industry Promotion Act, then enacted a standalone Electronic Sports Promotion Act in 2012, institutionalizing and industrializing esports and producing world-class players such as Faker. The Korean track record shows that this legislative path works. He argues that if DPP legislators remain fixated on the meaning of a “basic act,” the debate is missing the point.

Taiwan: The Country Best Placed to Enact an Esports Basic Act

At the public hearing, Ko noted that Taiwan accounts for roughly 0.03% of the world’s land and 0.3% of its population, yet about 80% of the world’s esports peripherals and products are manufactured in Taiwan, and 3 of the world’s top 5 esports brands are Taiwanese. The graphics cards, equipment, ICT technology, and hardware supply chains behind esports are also deeply connected to Taiwan.

If any country in the world is best placed to enact an esports basic act, Ko argues, it is the Republic of China (Taiwan). Supporting esports means supporting not only players but also Taiwan’s technology, hardware, broadcasting, network, and digital content industries. Taiwan already has world-class technological strength; it should also have institutions for cultivating world-class esports players.

Cross-Ministry Governance: Why a Higher-Ranking Framework Is Needed

Although the Sports Industry Development Act already includes esports as a sports industry, the current framework remains clearly short of a complete system. Esports spans too many domains for any single ministry to handle:

• Computers peripherals and hardware industries fall under the Ministry of Economic Affairs
• Game development falls under the Ministry of Digital Affairs
• Player employment falls under the Ministry of Labor
• Academic support for student players falls under the Ministry of Education
• Events, cultural creativity, and alternative military service selection fall under the Ministry of Culture
• The health of underage players falls under the Ministry of Health and Welfare

For this reason, esports needs a higher-ranking framework law that establishes a cross-ministry governance structure.

Local Participation and Diversity

Article 12 of the draft gives local governments a role. Beyond central cross-ministry effort, local governments should be able to tailor their own esports development plans to local conditions, creating diverse models.

Article 4 of the draft guarantees that people of different genders, ages, identities, and backgrounds have equal opportunities to participate in the esports industry. Senior esports is also on the rise: older adults can make friends through esports and even team up with younger players. In an aging society, esports can become a new way to support lifelong learning, intergenerational exchange, and physical and mental well-being.

International Trends: Esports Is Already an Official Sport

Esports is also steadily entering the formal international sports system: it was a demonstration sport at the 2018 Jakarta Asian Games, became an official medal sport at the 2022 Hangzhou Asian Games, and is on the official program of the 2026 Aichi-Nagoya Asian Games. The International Olympic Committee has also announced that the inaugural Olympic Esports Games will be held in 2027, showing that countries around the world now treat esports with greater seriousness and structure.

Esports is no longer simply “playing games locked in a room.” It is part of lifelong learning, technology application, industrial development, hand-eye coordination, and international exchange. The government cannot collect taxes and value from the esports industry on the one hand while letting the industry and its players fight back tears on the other.

Government and Cross-Party Positions

Minister of Sports Lee Yang acknowledged at the public hearing that esports development had indeed lagged during his predecessor’s tenure at the Sports Administration. The Ministry has included esports in sports-industry loans, credit guarantees, and interest subsidies, and is drafting an esports industry white paper. At the same time, Lee stated that the Ministry does not support any basic act or dedicated law, preferring to proceed through the National Sports Act, the Sports Industry Development Act, and administrative orders, and arguing that individual sports should not each receive their own law.

The Taiwan People’s Party caucus has proposed an Electronic Sports Promotion Act as an alternative. Legislator Ko Chih-en has said that if a basic act is not acceptable, a promotion act would be a workable path. On the DPP side, Legislator Kuo Yu-ching has argued that a dedicated law could fragment the legal structure of sports governance, and Legislator Wu Szu-yao has urged passing the budget first.

Ko maintains that the esports basic act is not about securing privileges for a single sport; it is about giving players a stage, the industry a direction, and talent a future.

Next Steps and Goals

Ko hopes the Esports Basic Act will combine central, local, and cross-sector resources to build a more complete esports development system and give Taiwan a voice on the world esports map. Supporting the esports basic act means Taiwan aims not only to manufacture the best equipment but also to cultivate its own Faker—and players who go even further.

Timeline