On November 26, 2024, the Executive Board of the Olympic Council of Asia (OCA) unanimously approved a proposal to remove esports from the Asian Games program after the Aichi-Nagoya Asian Games. Yesterday, however, the OCA stated that it had never made a decision to exclude esports from the Asian Games.
Both statements came from the OCA. Yet while the official document containing the previous decision remains intact to this day, there is no document anywhere rescinding the decision to exclude esports from the Asian Games.
Inven checked the decisions from the 90th Executive Board Meeting listed under the General Assembly and Executive Board decisions section on the official OCA website. Item 6 of the document explicitly states, “The Executive Board also unanimously approved the proposal of the Esports, Martial Arts and Mind Sports Committee, to remove the Esports from the Asian Games Programme after the Aichi Nagoya Asian Games and hold a separate Asian Esports and Mind Games.”
The wording is explicit. It is neither a discussion nor a review; it clearly reads "unanimously approved." At the bottom of the document are the signatures of OCA Vice President Timothy Fok, who chaired the meeting at the time, and OCA Director General Husain Al-Musallam.
However, on the 28th, the OCA released a completely contradictory stance through its official Chinese WeChat channel 'AsianGamesOCA'. The OCA stated, "No decision or announcement has ever been made regarding the exclusion of esports from the Asian Games," adding that the information circulating online does not align with the OCA's work plans.
Director General Al-Musallam also explained that creating a separate Asian Esports and Mind Games would not weaken the status of esports within the Asian Games framework.
Decisions can change. The policy approved in 2024 could have been re-examined later, or it might have been revoked through a separate meeting. The issue is that there is zero transparency regarding that process.
If the previous decision was rescinded, the OCA simply needs to disclose when, at which meeting, and through what procedure it was altered. If the approval by the 90th Executive Board was not a final decision, they must explain what "unanimous approval" meant. If the document itself was drafted incorrectly, proper protocol dictates correcting the document and explaining how the error occurred.
As of the 29th, however, the original decision document remains published on the official OCA website without any indication of modification or revocation. The official list leading to the document also contains no notice of correction. The official record says "exclusion was approved," while the OCA's current stance says "no decision was ever made."
This is not a mere difference in interpretation. "Unanimously approved" and "never made any decision" cannot logically coexist. Furthermore, the officials involved in both instances are the exact same. The Director General whose name was signed on the 2024 decision document denied the exclusion of esports from the Asian Games on social media in 2026.
Official social media channels are a means to deliver statements quickly. However, they cannot replace an official decision document containing the resolution of the Executive Board. Reversing a past decision requires a corresponding official decision and documentation. Posting a contradictory stance on social media does not erase existing official records.
The status of an Asian Games event serves as the benchmark for athletes, coaches, and national federations to determine their preparation strategies. A single decision by the OCA can alter national team selection, training, and support plans. When an official decision document conflicts with the current stance on such a critical matter, the OCA cannot blame external parties for the resulting confusion.
The questions the OCA must answer are simple: When was the decision unanimously approved by the Executive Board in 2024 discarded? If it was not discarded, why state that no decision was ever made? Which one is the currently valid official stance?
Decisions can change. But the process through which a decision changes must not disappear. If the OCA continues to release contradictory statements while leaving the official decision document untouched, what it loses is its credibility.
