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 verified the decision document from the 90th Executive Board meeting listed under the General Assembly and Executive Board decisions 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 clear. It was neither a discussion nor a review; it explicitly states "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 Sports Games would not weaken the status of esports within the Asian Games system.
Decisions can change. The policy approved in 2024 may have been re-examined since, or it might have been revoked through a separate meeting. The problem is that no such process is visible at all.
If the original decision was rescinded, the OCA simply needs to disclose when, in which meeting, and through what procedure it was changed. If the 90th Executive Board's approval was not the final decision, it must explain what "unanimously approved" meant. If the document itself was drafted in error, the proper order of business would be to correct the document and explain why the error occurred.
However, as of the 29th, the original decision document remains published on the official OCA website without any indication of modification or revocation. The official index listing the decision documents contains no separate notice of correction either. Official records say "approved the removal," while the OCA's current stance says "never made a decision."
This is not a simple difference in interpretation. "Unanimously approved" and "never made any decision" cannot easily coexist. Furthermore, the official in charge across both accounts is the same person. The Director General whose name appeared on the 2024 decision document denied the exclusion of esports from the Asian Games on social media in 2026.
Official social media is a tool for rapidly conveying a stance. However, it cannot replace an official decision document containing the resolution of the Executive Board. Reversing a past decision requires a corresponding official decision and record to follow. Posting a contradictory stance on social media does not make existing official records vanish.
The status of an Asian Games sport serves as the benchmark by which athletes, coaches, and national federations set their preparations. A single OCA decision can alter national team selection, training, and support plans. When official decision documents and current stances conflict on a matter of such weight, the OCA cannot shift the blame for the confusion onto outside parties.
The questions the OCA needs to 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 valid official stance today?
Decisions can change. However, the process by which a decision changed must not be erased. If the OCA merely puts forth contradictory statements while leaving the official decision document unchanged, what it loses is trust.
