Is Coaching Fair in FGC Tournaments? Exploring the Impact on Competitive Play

You’ve made it to the grand finals of a major tournament. You did it off your own skills and merits, with a few tips and warm-up sets beforehand to get yourself ready and sharp. Your opponent has made it just as far and worked just as hard, and you’re ready for a hard-fought match. You play out the first set and win convincingly, and you’re looking to keep up that momentum going into the next round. All of a sudden, someone comes from the sidelines and starts muttering to your opponent for about 2-3 minutes. That slows down your momentum a bit, but nothing you couldn’t handle. However, your opponent’s tactics have changed. Suddenly, that convincing win is the only win you have as you’re countered at every turn thanks to some live advice that watched your match like a live replay. Next thing you know, you lose. You fought hard, but you lost to those 2-3 minutes of coaching. This, from what I’ve gathered, is the nightmare scenario for those who are against coaching during tournaments.

As someone who’s followed the FGC for years now and spectated hundreds of tournaments, one aspect that has remained a matter of contention is coaching. Should we ban it? Should we allow it? Should it be regulated and restricted? Before writing this, my knee-jerk reaction was to shrug it off and let it happen. However, after engaging in many discussions within not just the FGC, but other gaming communities as well, I’ve gained some new perspectives. Honestly? I do think coaching could stay, but I don’t think it should.

The Skill of Adaptation vs. the Coach’s Advantage

Let’s start with the reason that ultimately swayed me: not everyone has a coach. Initially, I took for granted the position of a coach, but the more I understood, the more I realized the leg up you have when you have a good coach. Mid-set adaptation is a hallmark of high-level play, where the ability to adjust on the fly distinguishes the best players from the rest. This skill is honed through experience, intuition, and a deep understanding of the game’s mechanics. When a coach is allowed to step in, it can undermine the very essence of this challenge. The presence of a coach shifts some of the mental burden from the player to an external party, which could diminish the player’s ability to develop this critical skill. Moreover, this reliance on a coach may lead to a less exciting viewing experience, as the tension of watching a player navigate through a challenging situation in real-time is diffused.

Unfair Advantages and Accessibility

Another critical issue is the inherent unfairness when one player has a coach, and the other does not. Coaching introduces a disparity that can exacerbate existing inequalities within the competitive scene. Players from less well-funded backgrounds or regions may not have access to coaching, creating a divide that goes beyond just skill and into the realm of resources. This divide raises important questions about accessibility and fairness in competitive gaming. If coaching remains permissible, it could create an environment where success is not only determined by individual talent but also by the external support structure available to a player. This shift could fundamentally alter the competitive landscape, making it more difficult for underdog players to break through, thereby reducing the diversity of talent at the highest levels of play.

Logistical Challenges and Tournament Experience

The logistics of coaching also present significant challenges. It’s bad enough that pools can have crowds of people swarming around you if you’re a top player, and moving along a tournament can be challenging. Having to stop so someone can give you match advice every few minutes may seem small, but those minutes add up. The cumulative impact of coaching interruptions could significantly affect the overall tournament experience, both for participants and spectators. For players, these interruptions disrupt the flow of competition, breaking the momentum that is often crucial in high-stakes matches. For spectators, prolonged matches due to coaching could lead to fatigue, reducing the excitement and engagement that tournaments strive to maintain. Additionally, tournament organizers face the challenge of managing these delays while trying to keep to a tight schedule. The added time for coaching might not seem substantial on a match-by-match basis, but across an entire tournament, especially one with the scale of an event like EVO, it could lead to delays that push back schedules, disrupt broadcasts, and ultimately diminish the quality of the event.

Potential Solutions and Their Implications

So, what do we do to keep coaching around? Well, the easy-sounding solutions are to either limit how much time a coach has to talk, make sure everyone has a coach, or make it so that if one player doesn’t have a coach, then neither can have one. The first solution—limiting coaching time—might seem the most feasible, but it comes with its own set of challenges. Let’s consider the broader implications of adding just one extra minute for coaching to a major tournament like EVO. EVO typically features thousands of matches across multiple games. If each match were extended by just one minute, the cumulative effect could result in hours of additional time. This extension not only impacts the tournament’s schedule but also has a ripple effect on the entire event ecosystem. Longer tournaments mean increased costs for venue rentals, staff, and production crews. For international events, this could also affect travel arrangements for players, staff, and attendees. Moreover, the extended time can lead to viewer fatigue, particularly in regions with different time zones, where audiences may struggle to stay engaged with a prolonged broadcast. These factors underscore the need for a solution that balances the desire for coaching with the practicalities of tournament logistics.

The second idea—ensuring every player has a coach—is even more problematic. How do you enforce this? Most coaches are someone the player knows, and they may not always be available. Some coaches are fellow players, so what if your coach is in a match? Having a dedicated coach seems unreasonable and only something sponsored players would have access to, further widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

Finally, the last solution—if one player doesn’t have a coach, then neither can have one—levels the playing field the best and ensures both players have the same amount of access and ability to win. But in essence, this solution is akin to a soft ban on coaching, as it effectively discourages coaching altogether.

The Broader Impact on the FGC

This coaching discourse has shown me a lot about why coaching is such a big deal and why it’s so highly debated. The debate over coaching reflects a deeper issue within the FGC regarding the balance between tradition and modernization. On one hand, the FGC has always prided itself on the purity of competition, where individual skill reigns supreme. On the other hand, as the scene grows and professionalizes, new dynamics such as coaching naturally emerge. The decision to ban or allow coaching could set a precedent for how the community handles other evolving aspects of competitive play. By addressing coaching head-on, the FGC has the opportunity to define what it values most in its competitions: the raw skill and adaptability of its players, or the strategic depth that external coaching can provide. The outcome of this debate will likely influence how the community perceives other potential innovations, such as data analytics, AI-driven coaching, and more.

In the pursuit of fair competition, we must prioritize the integrity of the game over the convenience of a coach’s advice. While future tournaments could theoretically accommodate coaching, the disparity it creates, along with the logistical challenges, suggests that the FGC would be better off without it. Anything that brings more problems than solutions should be cut out for the sake of everyone involved.

About Author