Beyond Football and Fighting Games: Could Africa’s Security Forces Become the Next Frontier for Esports?

From military personnel and school cadets to private security companies, Africa has an opportunity to turn competitive gaming into a platform for digital education, employment, innovation and national development. The International Defence Esports Games in Britain offers an important example. But can African tournament organisers build a commercially sustainable model without compromising education, public trust or their independence?

Africa’s esports industry may be overlooking an important market

For much of Africa’s developing esports industry, growth has been measured through familiar activities: football gaming tournaments, fighting game competitions, mobile gaming championships and occasional international qualifiers.

These competitions are important. They provide entertainment, create communities and give talented players an opportunity to compete. In countries where access to professional esports infrastructure remains limited, even modest competitions can have considerable social value.

Yet there is a question that tournament organisers, investors and policymakers should be asking more frequently: what lasting economic value remains after the tournament ends?

Too often, a competition concludes with a winner, a trophy, photographs and perhaps a cash prize. The venue is dismantled, sponsors move on, and organisers begin searching for funding for the next event.

This model can generate visibility without necessarily producing lasting institutions, employment opportunities or technical capabilities.

The problem is not that African tournament organisers focus on EA Sports FC, Tekken, Street Fighter, Call of Duty or other popular titles. These games provide the foundation for competitive communities, and some already sustain meaningful commercial ecosystems.

The limitation arises when tournament organisers treat the competition itself as the entire product, rather than as an entry point into a broader industry.

One potentially underexplored opportunity lies in Africa’s security sector: armed forces, police services, emergency response organisations, school cadet programmes and private security companies.

These institutions already value teamwork, discipline, communication, situational awareness and decision-making under pressure. Competitive gaming can offer a structured environment in which to practise certain related skills.

More importantly, partnerships could create new markets for African event operators, digital educators, game developers, production companies and technology providers.

The opportunity deserves serious examination. It also requires more caution than the usual argument that gaming prepares people for modern warfare.

What Britain has demonstrated

Between 8 and 11 October 2026, the inaugural International Defence Esports Games brought 150 serving military esports competitors to the newly opened British Arena in Sunderland.

According to the British Esports Federation, 58 countries applied and ten qualified for the finals: Canada, France, Japan, the Netherlands, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Competition took place across four titles:

• Counter-Strike 2, a team-based tactical shooter.
• Rocket League, a competitive vehicle-football game.
• iRacing, a motorsport simulation platform.
• VelociDrone, a drone-racing simulator.

Canada won the Counter-Strike 2 competition, while Great Britain secured victories in the other three titles.

The results were noteworthy, but the institutional arrangement behind the tournament was arguably more significant.

The British Ministry of Defence appointed the British Esports Federation to deliver the competition through the UK’s Cyber and Specialist Operations Command.

The tournament was not simply a military organisation hiring a venue for a gaming weekend. It brought together public institutions, a national esports body, commercial technology companies and defence-sector businesses.

Founding partners included Babcock International, BAE Systems, Dell Technologies, DXC, Lockheed Martin and Sunderland City Council.

The approach effectively positioned esports within a broader discussion about digital skills, defence technology, industry collaboration and workforce development.

For Africa, the lesson is not to reproduce Britain’s military structure. It is to understand why a national institution saw value in commissioning an experienced esports organisation.

British Esports was able to offer something beyond matches and medals: tournament delivery, technical expertise, industry relationships and a credible platform for institutional collaboration.

This is a different commercial proposition from selling sponsorship space at a weekend tournament.

And it poses a challenge to African esports organisers: are they building organisations capable of delivering such services?

Can esports contribute to modern military skills?

One of the most interesting aspects of IDEG was its decision to include titles beyond conventional shooting games.

Counter-Strike 2 tests communication, coordination and decision-making within a competitive environment. Rocket League requires players to maintain awareness, distribute responsibilities and adapt to rapidly changing situations. iRacing involves concentration, judgement and precision. VelociDrone introduces participants to simulated drone controls.

These are different activities, but they share an important characteristic: participants must repeatedly make decisions, receive feedback and adapt their performance.

For military and emergency-response organisations, this creates potential educational applications.

In July 2025, researchers including Benjamin Sharpe and Phil Birch published a commentary examining the transferability of esports skills to military and emergency-responder occupations. The paper explored possible applications involving rapid decision-making, strategic thinking, team coordination and stress management.

Yet an important distinction must be maintained.

Being good at Counter-Strike does not automatically make someone an effective soldier. Playing a drone simulator does not, by itself, qualify an individual to operate real aircraft. Nor does competitive gaming establish professional cybersecurity competence.

The degree to which gaming skills transfer to operational environments depends on the similarity of the tasks, the quality of instruction and whether the skills are independently assessed.

This is where Africa’s opportunity becomes more interesting.

Instead of simply asking whether gaming can prepare people for warfare, African institutions should examine whether gaming can support broader digital competencies relevant to defence, public safety and civilian employment.

These include information analysis, basic cybersecurity awareness, communication, collaborative problem-solving, digital systems literacy and responsible technology use.

Civilian applications are equally important. Skills developed through properly designed educational programmes may be relevant to aviation, logistics, emergency planning, software development, engineering and technical operations.

Africa’s greatest return may come not from producing better virtual soldiers, but from producing more capable digital professionals.

School cadets: an opportunity to rethink digital education

Military institutions can be difficult partners for independent tournament organisers. Access, procurement, operational priorities and security requirements may create obstacles.

School cadet programmes could offer a more accessible starting point.

Across parts of Africa, cadet organisations already help young people develop discipline, leadership and a sense of responsibility. Yet many programmes remain associated primarily with marching, ceremonial activities and physical exercises.

Gaming and digital technology could broaden their educational relevance.

There is already evidence of movement in this direction.

In September 2026, Ghana’s National Cadet Corps, working with the MISORNU Safety Center, delivered leadership and safety-focused training to more than 500 school cadets from 11 regions. The programme included emotional intelligence, conflict resolution, peer mediation and community safety.

Although this was not an esports programme, it demonstrates that cadet education can extend beyond traditional drills.

Imagine an African school cadet programme in which students participate in supervised competitions while learning digital citizenship, cybersecurity fundamentals, engineering, broadcasting and leadership.

A Rocket League tournament might be accompanied by sessions on communication and teamwork. A racing simulator competition could introduce students to vehicle dynamics, engineering and road safety. A non-combat drone simulation challenge could support lessons in physics, spatial reasoning and civilian applications such as environmental monitoring.

Students who do not wish to compete could participate in commentary, video production, graphic design, event operations or data analysis.

Such an approach would also challenge the assumption that esports opportunities belong only to talented players.

A sixteen-year-old who cannot win a tournament might nevertheless discover an aptitude for computer networking, livestream production or event management.

This would give esports a stronger educational justification.

Britain provides an interesting comparison. Its Ministry of Defence has supported cybersecurity education for cadets through the CyberFirst programme, combining youth development with recognised digital learning opportunities.

African countries need not copy Britain’s system. They can design programmes around local curricula, existing equipment, affordable software and their own development priorities.

However, school cadets must remain educational beneficiaries, not inexpensive recruitment pipelines.

Programmes involving minors should separate recreational and civilian STEM learning from military recruitment or operational training. Participation should be voluntary, age-appropriate and subject to parental consent, child protection policies and independent educational oversight.

Could private security companies become Africa’s first institutional esports customers?

There is a commercial argument for beginning with the private sector.

Africa’s private security industry includes companies providing guarding, corporate security, access control, surveillance, logistics support and related services.

South Africa illustrates the sector’s economic significance. In 2024, its government reported that the national private security regulator estimated the industry’s annual value at approximately R200 billion.

These are businesses accustomed to expenditure on workforce training, recruitment, technology, employee welfare and corporate branding.

For an African tournament organiser, this represents a potentially attractive customer category.

Consider a security company with employees across several cities. It could establish an internal esports team and enter a professionally managed corporate championship.

That competition could form part of a wider employee development and engagement programme.

The company might pay for annual tournament administration, team registration, coaching, digital skills workshops, streaming production and branded events.

Other companies could participate, creating an inter-company championship supported by technology suppliers, training providers and corporate sponsors.

This arrangement would differ substantially from a traditional esports event dependent on ticket sales or a single sponsor.

A tournament organiser could potentially earn recurring income from a contracted institutional customer while giving the customer a measurable workforce engagement programme.

There is also room for public-facing competitions involving security personnel, civilian employees, veterans and invited community teams.

Such events could help humanise security organisations, promote positive relationships with communities and demonstrate technological innovation.

But the business case must withstand scrutiny.

Private security companies are not automatically willing to spend money on esports. Many operate under tight margins and face immediate priorities involving wages, equipment, compliance and staff retention.

A tournament organiser would need to show why esports creates value that cannot be delivered more cheaply through conventional staff activities or training.

Improved morale, reduced turnover, digital learning participation and employer branding are plausible benefits. They are not guaranteed outcomes.

The best initial approach would therefore be a modest, independently evaluated pilot rather than an expensive national championship.

From tournaments to a sustainable economic ecosystem

The more ambitious proposition is to build an institutional esports ecosystem around repeat participation, education and employment.

Such a system would serve three markets simultaneously.

The first is entertainment. Security organisations, cadets and civilian participants would compete in accessible games, creating audiences and opportunities for media companies.

The second is education. Participants would gain access to structured digital learning, ideally delivered with recognised educational institutions and assessed against specific competencies.

The third is enterprise development. African businesses would supply the event infrastructure, software support, production equipment, coaching, training and related services.

This third market is particularly significant.

Africa’s esports industry often measures success through players, prize pools and audience figures. Yet considerable economic value also exists in the supply chain.

Every well-structured championship needs organisers, administrators, technicians, broadcasters, designers, referees, equipment providers and venue operators.

If these services are purchased from locally established businesses, expenditure circulates through the domestic economy.

Local game developers could also benefit by creating appropriate educational games and civilian training simulations.

But there is a potential contradiction.

If an African institutional esports programme relies entirely on imported hardware, foreign-owned games, overseas production services and external tournament platforms, the amount of value retained locally may be limited.

That does not make the programme worthless. International technology partnerships are often essential.

It does mean that organisers should negotiate for local skills transfer, local supplier participation and ownership of legitimate event-related intellectual property wherever commercially possible.

Ultimately, the real measure of success is not the size of the tournament. It is the proportion of economic and educational value that remains after the event.

Which games should African organisers choose?

The temptation would be to copy the IDEG programme exactly.

That would be a mistake.

African tournament organisers must consider hardware costs, internet reliability, participant familiarity, age restrictions, software licensing and educational relevance.

The choice should follow the purpose of the programme rather than the popularity of a title alone.

Competition category	Potential benefit	Appropriate institutional application
EA Sports FC and eFootball	Broad participation and accessible entertainment	Staff leagues, cadet recreation and community engagement
Rocket League	Team coordination and communication	Team-building and collaborative learning
Street Fighter and Tekken	Concentration, composure and competitive discipline	Inclusive recreation and structured competition
iRacing and other motorsport simulators	Technical interest in vehicle systems	Engineering, road safety and STEM education
Non-combat drone simulators	Spatial reasoning and technical familiarity	Civilian drone education and technology demonstrations
Cybersecurity games and capture-the-flag exercises	Demonstrable technical problem-solving	Supervised cybersecurity education
Counter-Strike and Call of Duty	Team communication within competitive play	Age-appropriate adult recreation, subject to institutional policies

The distinction between commercial esports titles and accredited training tools is essential. Entertainment games should not be sold as substitutes for formal military, security or professional training.

Tournament organisers should also secure appropriate publisher permissions and avoid implying that popular games offer officially recognised qualifications.

A broader selection of titles could help security-sector competitions attract women, non-combat personnel, technical specialists and employees who have little interest in military-themed gaming.

After all, an employee who excels at motorsport simulation or a cooperative puzzle game may be as valuable to a corporate championship as an experienced first-person shooter player.

The strongest model would not rely entirely on sponsorship.

Organisers could charge institutions for services that they already need: employee engagement, event administration, digital education and communications.

Sponsorship, broadcasting and merchandise could provide additional revenue rather than being responsible for the survival of the programme.

Long-term contracts would be especially valuable because they could support permanent employment for production staff, coaches and administrators.

However, organisers must account for the substantial costs involved: insurance, safeguarding, technical equipment, venues, connectivity, licensing, travel, staffing and compliance.

Access to a large security organisation does not necessarily translate into a profitable contract.

The central commercial question is whether an organiser can deliver measurable benefits at a price the institution considers reasonable.

This is where African tournament operators will need to improve their procurement readiness, financial reporting and ability to demonstrate outcomes.

The risks Africa cannot afford to ignore

There is an uncomfortable question at the centre of this proposal: should the esports industry be actively encouraging closer relationships between young people, gaming communities and military institutions?

The answer cannot simply be yes.

Africa’s security institutions operate in different political, legal and social environments. Public trust in security agencies varies considerably, and in some countries, military involvement in civilian life is politically sensitive.

Any programme involving the military must therefore be assessed in terms of independence, human rights, public accountability and educational purpose.

There are at least four important risks.

First, esports must not become a disguised recruitment mechanism targeting minors. School cadet programmes should prioritise education, recreation and civilian career opportunities. Young people should never be pressured towards military careers because of their gaming ability.

Second, commercial organisers must retain editorial and operational independence. A partnership should not prevent journalists from reporting critically on a security institution or allow sponsors to influence competitive outcomes.

Third, private security partnerships require due diligence. Companies should be properly licensed, comply with labour regulations and have credible records on employee welfare and human rights. Research by the Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance has highlighted regulatory and accountability gaps affecting private security across Southern Africa.

Fourth, the use of gaming data must be carefully controlled. Tournament performance, behavioural assessments and educational records should not become covert instruments for employment screening, surveillance or security profiling.

These safeguards are not obstacles to commercial development. They are conditions for building a legitimate and sustainable industry.

Nor should African organisers overlook the humanitarian applications of gaming technologies.

Disaster response, emergency coordination, first aid education, transport safety and infrastructure protection offer socially valuable applications without the political sensitivities associated with military combat.

Indeed, an African programme that prioritises civilian safety and technological skills could be more widely acceptable than one marketed primarily around modern warfare.

A practical African model: start with institutions, not stadiums

For Africa, an institutional esports programme should begin with small, measurable partnerships rather than an immediate attempt to stage a continental military competition.

A sensible starting point would be a 12-month pilot involving a group of licensed private security companies, educational institutions, independent esports organisers and suitable technology partners.

The pilot could establish employee teams, organise an inter-company league and provide optional digital skills workshops.

Cadet participation should be delivered through a separate, independently governed educational programme focused on age-appropriate games, safeguarding and civilian STEM learning.

The programme should measure more than tournament results.

Proposed first-year performance measures

Participation	Number of institutions, employees and students participating regularly
Education	Workshop completion and independently assessed learning outcomes
Employment	Paid local production roles, internships and supplier contracts
Commercial sustainability	Contract renewals, programme margin and recurring revenue
Public value	Participant satisfaction, accessibility, inclusion and safeguarding compliance

Proposed evaluation framework for an African institutional esports pilot.

Independent evaluation would help determine whether esports actually improves teamwork, learning participation or employee engagement compared with alternative activities.

If the pilot demonstrates value, it could expand into national corporate security leagues, regional competitions and, eventually, international institutional championships.

Public agencies could participate at a later stage, subject to proper approvals and transparent procurement.

This gradual approach would allow organisers to build credibility before seeking larger institutional commitments.

Is partnering with security agencies more profitable than organising traditional esports tournaments?

It could be. But not automatically.

A conventional tournament serving established gaming communities generally has lower institutional barriers and a clearer audience. Its commercial weakness often lies in unstable sponsorship and limited recurring income.

A security-sector partnership may offer longer contracts, identifiable customers and opportunities to sell multiple services. Conversely, it may involve lengthy negotiations, additional compliance costs, reputational risks and restrictions on public access.

The strongest opportunity may therefore be neither a purely commercial gaming event nor an exclusively military championship.

It may be a hybrid model combining established esports communities with educational and corporate customers.

Crucially, organisers should avoid abandoning the communities that built African esports in pursuit of institutional funding.

Independent players, small gaming centres, local tournament organisers and grassroots communities remain essential to the industry’s legitimacy.

An institutional programme should create additional opportunities for these groups rather than redirect resources away from them.

It should also offer meaningful roles to women, people with disabilities and participants who do not wish to engage with combat-themed titles.

The commercial benefits would be more substantial if the programme generated continuous activity throughout the year, rather than a single annual championship.

This means an esports organiser would increasingly operate as a provider of entertainment, education, digital services and institutional engagement.

That is a more complex business, but potentially a more durable one.

Africa should build its own model

The inaugural International Defence Esports Games demonstrated that competitive gaming can attract support from military institutions, technology companies, government bodies and commercial partners.

It did not demonstrate that every participant became a better soldier, that gaming automatically produces cybersecurity specialists or that such tournaments deliver a proven financial return.

These are separate propositions that require evidence.

Africa should take the institutional partnership model seriously without exaggerating what esports can achieve.

Countries such as Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Rwanda and South Africa have different combinations of gaming communities, educational institutions, security organisations and digital businesses. Their approaches should reflect those differences.

In Ghana, for example, school cadet programmes and private security companies could provide a basis for exploring supervised educational and corporate competitions.

Nigeria’s extensive gaming communities could support larger institutional leagues and local media production partnerships.

South Africa’s established esports infrastructure and substantial private security industry could offer opportunities to test more formal corporate competitions.

These are proposed pathways, not evidence of existing agreements or confirmed demand.

African organisers should also resist the temptation to establish a grand continental federation before demonstrating that the underlying business model works.

The priority should be to create practical partnerships, test their benefits, strengthen governance and build commercial capacity.

Only then should successful programmes be expanded across borders.

The real prize is not military esports. It is economic development.

Africa’s esports industry is at an important stage of development.

Its communities are expanding, its players are gaining international exposure, and its organisers are becoming more ambitious. Yet the industry continues to face challenges involving finance, infrastructure, institutional recognition and the ability to retain economic value.

The Sunderland event offers a useful lesson about looking beyond conventional tournament audiences.

Military institutions are one possible customer. Police services, private security companies, universities, emergency responders, transport companies and other large employers are potential customers too.

Each has different needs, budgets and responsibilities. Each could potentially benefit from well-designed gaming, digital education and employee engagement programmes.

For tournament organisers, the opportunity is to move beyond selling competitions and begin selling credible, measurable services.

For educational institutions, it is an opportunity to connect students’ interest in gaming with practical technical learning.

For governments, it is an opportunity to support digital skills and local enterprise without assuming that esports alone can solve unemployment or national security challenges.

And for Africa’s gaming communities, it could open new pathways into professional work that extend beyond becoming an elite competitor.

The question is therefore not whether Africa should copy the International Defence Esports Games.

It is whether African esports businesses can build partnerships that generate recurring income, develop local skills, protect participants and contribute meaningfully to the wider economy.

Africa does not need more tournaments simply because tournaments are fashionable. It needs stronger institutions, better commercial models and clearer routes from participation to opportunity.

If security-sector esports partnerships can deliver those outcomes, they deserve serious consideration.

If they cannot, a military uniform or a corporate logo will not make a tournament economically sustainable.

The future of African esports will be determined less by how many competitions the continent hosts than by what those competitions leave behind.