The research seeks to explore the complex factors that shape the E-sports industry in Thailand to create a viable source of national revenue while aligning with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The research uses a sequential exploratory mixed-methods design, incorporating qualitative thematic research from 11 strategic stakeholders and quantitative Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to analyze data from 360 registered E-sports athletes. The qualitative research results indicate that Government Promotion, which involves legislation and subsidies, is the fundamental catalyst for Technology Acceptance and Management Innovation. The quantitative results from PLS-SEM confirm the structural integrity of the research model and demonstrate a high level of model fitness. Notably, the quantitative results indicate that Intercultural Communication is the most influential factor in the development of the E-sports industry, with a beta weight of 0.67, highlighting the international nature of digital ecosystems. Government Promotion, on the other hand, demonstrated a significant indirect effect of 0.93, indicating its role as the bedrock of the entire research model. The article seeks to synthesize research findings and develop a strategic framework that integrates proactive, corrective, preventive, and reactive policy approaches to foster a viable E-sports industry in Thailand while promoting the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs 8 & 9).

1.         Dwivedi YK, Hughes L, Ismagilova E, et al. Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International journal of information management. 2021; 57: 102281. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002

2.         Das B. Diffusion of innovations: Theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development. 2020; 12(6): 697–706. doi: 10.1080/20421338.2020.1814517

3.         Cruz-Martínez GA, Vega-Muñoz A, Salazar-Sepúlveda G, et al. Analysis of studies on digital strategy: bibliometric research of three decades. Sustainability. 2024; 16(20): 8789. doi: 10.3390/su16208789

4.         Pu H, Kim J, Daprano C. Can E-sports substitute traditional sports? The convergence of sports and video gaming during the pandemic and beyond. Societies. 2021; 11(4): 129. doi: 10.3390/soc11040129

5.         Hong HJ. Exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on E-sports players’ wellbeing and career prospects. Computers in Human Behavior Reports. 2025; 17: 100589. doi: 10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100589

6.         Wang C, Qureshi I, Guo F, et al. Corporate social responsibility and disruptive innovation: The moderating effects of environmental turbulence. Journal of Business Research. 2022; 139: 1118–1129. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.046

7.         Verhoef PC, Broekhuizen T, Bart Y, et al. Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of business research. 2021; 122: 889–901. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022

8.         McCauley B, Tierney P, Scholz TM, et al. Innovation in the E-sports servicescape: A media business and management perspective. Journal of Media Business Studies. 2025; 22(1): 45–62. doi: 10.1080/16522354.2024.2378392

9.         de Zoeten M. E-sports, video gaming and their fuzziness: A conceptualization and research agenda. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal. 2024; 14(1): 99–116. doi: 10.1108/SBM-10-2022-0097

10.      Jang YS, Lim SY, Lee JM. A study on the cognitive-consumption behavior of sports content on OTT media platforms applying the extended technology acceptance model (E-TAM). PLoS One. 2025; 19(11): e0289011. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289011

11.      Reitman JG, et al. E-sports research: A literature review. Games and Culture. 2020; 15(1): 32–50. doi: 10.1177/1555412019840892

12.      Cai Y, Ahmad I. From an entrepreneurial university to a sustainable entrepreneurial university: Conceptualization and evidence in the contexts of European university reforms. Higher Education Policy. 2023; 36(1): 20–52. doi: 10.1057/s41307-021-00243-z

13.      Cerqueira L, Ribeiro T, de Almeida VMC. Hosting E-sports events: The quality-response-behavioural intentions relationship of E-sports fans. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. 2025; 7: 1547097. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1547097

14.      Frans AJ, Cahyadi HS, Hermanto S. Study of E-sports tourism potential using triple bottom line analysis method. International Journal of Sustainable Competitiveness on Tourism. 2022; 1(01): 42–46. doi: 10.34013/ijscot.v1i01.767

15.      Stam E, van de Ven A. Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business Economics. 2021; 56(2): 809–832. doi: 10.1007/s11187-019-00270-6

16.      Wurth B, Stam E, Spigel B. Toward an entrepreneurial ecosystem research program. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2022; 46(3): 729–778. doi: 10.1177/1042258721998948

17.      Carayannis EG, Grigoroudis E, Wurth B. OR for entrepreneurial ecosystems: A problem-oriented review and agenda. European Journal of Operational Research. 2022; 300(3): 791–808. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2021.10.30

18.      Spigel B. The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2017; 41(1): 49–72. doi: 10.1111/etap.12167

19.      Scott J, et al. Foundations for esports curricula in higher education. In: Proceedings of the 2021 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM; 2021:27-55. doi:10.1145/3502870.3506566

20.      Roundy PT, Bradshaw M, Brockman BK. The emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems: A complex adaptive systems approach. Journal of Business Research. 2018; 86: 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.032

21.      Yin K, Zi Y, Zhuang W, et al. Linking E-sports to health risks and benefits: Current knowledge and future research needs. Journal Of Sport And Health Science. 2020; 9(6): 485–488. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2020.04.006

22.      Funk DC, Pizzo AD, Baker BJ. eSport: Concepts and opportunities in sport management. Sport Management Review. 2018; 21(1): 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2017.11.002

23.      Cranmer EE, Han DI, van Hassel VN, et al. E-sports matrix: Structuring the E-sports research agenda. Computers in Human Behavior. 2021; 117: 106671. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106671

24.      Pedraza-Ramirez I, et al. E-sports research: A literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(10): 3668. doi:10.1080/1750984X.2020.1723122

25.      Ock D, Hwang Y. The impacts of social needs and game playing type on E-sports consumers’ positive eWOM sharing: applying the FIRO theory. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship. 2023; 24(5): 967–984. doi: 10.1108/IJSMS-02-2023-0022

26.      Seo Y. Professionalized consumption and identity transformations in the field of E-sports. Journal of Business Research. 2016; 69(1): 264–272. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.039

27.      Earley PC, Ang S. Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures. Stanford University Press; 2003.

28.      Trotter MG, Coulter TJ, Davis PA, et al. Social support, self-regulation, and psychological skill use in e-athletes. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021; 12: 722030. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.722030

29.      Hamari J, Sjöblom M. What is eSports and why do people watch it? Internet Res. 2017;27(2):211-232. doi:10.1108/IntR-04-2016-0085

30.      Teixeira MC. Gaming habits in E-sports: An exploratory approach. Behavioral Sciences. 2025; 15(5): 620. doi: 10.3390/bs15050620

31.      Sanz-Matesanz M, Gea-García GM, Martínez-Aranda LM. Physical and psychological factors related to player's health and performance in esports: A scoping review. Comput Hum Behav. 2023;143:107698. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107698

32.      Hallmann K, Giel T. eSports – Competitive sports or recreational activity? Sport Management Review. 2018; 21(1): 14–20. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2017.07.011

33.      Foss NJ, Saebi T. Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: How far have we come, and where should we go? J Manage. 2017;43(1):200-227. doi:10.1177/0149206316675927

34.      Rudolf K, et al. Demographics and health behavior of video game and esports players in Germany: The esports study 2019. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(6):1870. doi:10.3390/ijerph17061870

35.      Jang WW, Byon KK, Yoo J. Using the playful consumption experience model to uncover E-sports/live-streaming consumption behavior. Data Technologies and Applications. 2022; 56(5): 785–802. doi: 10.1108/DTA-02-2021-0055

36.      Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, Sinkovics N, et al. A perspective on using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in data articles. Data in Brief. 2023; 48: 109074. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2023.109074

37.      Brown R, Mason C. Looking inside the spiky bits: A critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics. 2017; 49(1): 11–30. doi: 10.1007/s11187-017-9865-7

38.      Stam E. Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. Eur Plan Stud. 2015;23(9):1759-1769. doi:10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484

39.      Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ. Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems: Twenty-first-century democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for development. Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems: 21st-century democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for development. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2011. pp. 1–63. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-2062-0_1

40.      Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy. 2000; 29(2): 109–123. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4

41.      Jenny SE, Manning RD, Keiper MC, et al. Virtual(ly) athletes: Where E-sports fit within the definition of “Sport”. Quest. 2017; 69(1): 1–18. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2016.1144517

42.      Byon KK, et al. Exploring the relationship between E-sports spectator motives and behavioral intentions. Frontiers in Psychology. 2023; 14: 1156890. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1156890

43.      Williams D, Tutka P, Gawrysiak J, et al. NCAA E-sports 20XX: An analysis of radical innovation adoption through firm collaboration. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing. 2021; 21(1–2): 76–102. doi: 10.1504/ijsmm.2021.114167

44.      Jang WW, Byon KK. Investigation of E-sports playing intention formation. Sport Marketing Quarterly. 2021; 30(3): 206–220. doi: 10.32731/SMQ.303.0921.03

45.      Dwivedi YK, et al. Setting the future of digital and social media marketing research: Perspectives and research propositions. Int J Inf Manage. 2021;59:102168. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102168

46.      Teece DJ. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Plann. 2010;43(2-3):172-194. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003

47.      Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989; 13(3): 319–340. doi: 10.2307/249008

48.      Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, et al. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly. 2003; 27(3): 425–478. doi: 10.2307/30036540

49.      Venkatesh V, Thong JY, Xu X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly. 2012; 36(1): 157–178. doi: 10.2307/41410412

50.      Qian TY, Wang JJ, Wei F, et al. Understanding E-sports consumers: A systematic review and future research agenda. Sport Management Review. 2020; 23(1): 117–118. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2019.06.002

51.      Tarhini A, Hone K, Liu X, et al. Examining the moderating effect of individual-level cultural values on users’ acceptance of E-learning in developing countries: A structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model. Interactive Learning Environments. 2017; 25(3): 306–328. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2015.1122635

52.      Hilvert-Bruce Z, Neill JT, Sjöblom M, et al. Social motivations of live-streaming viewer engagement on Twitch. Computers in Human Behavior. 2018; 84: 58–67. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.013

53.      Nunes L, Castro C, Ferreira J. E-sports consumption: A systematic review of player and spectator behavior. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022; 13: 1011325. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1011325

54.      Oliveira T, Thomas M, Baptista G, et al. Mobile payment: Understanding the determinants of customer adoption and intention to recommend the technology. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016; 61: 404–414. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.030

55.      Alalwan AA, et al. Consumer adoption of mobile banking in Jordan: Examining the role of usefulness, ease of use, perceived risk and self-efficacy. J Enterp Inf Manag. 2016;29(1):118-139. doi:10.1108/JEIM-04-2015-0035

56.      Slade E, et al. Exploring consumer adoption of proximity mobile payments. Journal of Strategic Marketing. 2015; 23(3): 209–223. doi: 10.1080/0965254X.2014.914075

57.      Tamilmani K, Rana NP, Alalwan AA, et al. The extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2): A systematic literature review and theory evaluation. International Journal Of Information Management. 2021; 57: 102269. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102269

58.      Awan U, Sroufe R, Shahbaz M. Industry 4.0 and the circular economy: A roadmap for sustainable business performance. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022; 358: 131937. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131937

59.      Teece DJ. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal. 2007; 28(13): 1319–1350. doi: 10.1002/smj.640

60.      Ferreira JJ, Fernandes CI, Ferreira FAF, et al. Resource-based view (RBV) and sustainable competitive advantage: A systematic review and future research agenda. Sustainability. 2023; 15(16): 12456. doi: 10.3390/su151612456

61.      Appio FP, Frattini F, Petruzzelli AM, et al. Digital transformation and innovation management: A synthesis of existing research and an agenda for future studies. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2021; 38(1): 4–20. doi: 10.1111/jpim.12562

62.      Spicer SG, Nicklin LL, Uther M, et al. Loot boxes, problem gambling and problem video gaming: A systematic review and meta-syntheses. New Media & Society. 2022; 24(4): 1001–1022. doi: 10.1177/14614448211027175

63.      Kelly SJ, Leung K. The new frontier of E-sports and gaming: A scoping review of mental health outcomes. Addictive Behaviors. 2021; 117: 106843. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.106843

64.      Maier T. Talking to Win: The Impact of Communication on Performance in E-sports. Journal of Electronic Gaming and Esports. 2024; 2(1): 1–12. doi: 10.1123/jege.2024-0036

65.      Caprar DV, et al. Conceptualizing and measuring culture in international business and management: From challenges to potential solutions. Journal of International Business Studies. 2015; 46(9): 1011–1027. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2015.33

66.      Ang S, Van Dyne L, Koh C, et al. Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review. 2007; 3(3): 335–371. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x

67.      Richter NF, Martin J, Hansen SV, et al. Cultural intelligence (CQ): A rigorous, multilevel assessment of its construct validity. Journal of International Management. 2021; 27(4): 100871. doi: 10.1016/j.intman.2021.100871

68.      Borggrefe C, Hoffmann A. Observations on sport and eSport from a systems theory perspective. International Review for the Sociology of Sport. 2024; 59(5). doi: 10.1177/10126902241253449

69.      Taras V, Kirkman BL, Steel P. Examining the impact of Culture’s Consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2010; 95(3): 405–439. doi: 10.1037/a0018938

70.      Minkov M, Kaasa A. A test of Hofstede’s model of culture following his own approach. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management. 2021; 28(2): 384–406. doi: 10.1108/CCSM-05-2020-0120

71.      Kaplan RS, Norton DP. The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Boston, MA, USA: Harvard Business Review; 2005.

72.      Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE. Applied Thematic Analysis. SAGE Publications; 2012.

73.      Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. SAGE Publications; 2022.

74.      Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage; 2011.

75.      Hennink M, Kaiser CR. Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine. 2022; 292: 114523. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523

76.      Saldaña J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. SAGE Publications; 2021.

77.      Tracy SJ. Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry. 2010; 16(10): 837–851. doi: 10.1177/1077800410383121

78.      Gioia DA, Corley KG, Hamilton AL. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods. 2013; 16(1): 15–31. doi: 10.1177/1094428112452151

79.      Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research In Psychology. 2006; 3(2): 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

80.      Braun V, Clarke V. What can “thematic analysis” offer health and wellbeing researchers? International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being. 2014; 9(1): 26152. doi: 10.3402/qhw.v9.26152

81.      Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, et al. Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal Of Qualitative Methods. 2017; 16(1): 1609406917733847. doi: 10.1177/1609406917733847

82.      Eisenhardt KM. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review. 1989; 14(4): 532–550. doi: 10.5465/amr.1989.4308385

83.      Nyström AG. Mixed methods research in E-sports: Current status and future directions. Journal of Electronic Gaming and Esports. 2024; 2(1). doi: 10.1123/jege.2023-0010

84.      de Zoeten M, McCauley B. Where do amateurs go to become pros? A comparison of current competition systems in collegiate E-sports. Journal of Electronic Gaming and Esports. 2024; 2(1). doi: 10.1123/jege.2023-0009

85.      Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, et al. Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications; 2024.

86.      Dash G, Paul J. CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting. Technological Forecasting And Social Change. 2021; 173: 121092. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121092

87.      Sarstedt M, Hair JF, Pick M, et al. Progress in partial least squares structural equation modeling use in marketing research in the last decade. Psychology & Marketing. 2022; 39(5): 1035–1064. doi: 10.1002/mar.21640

88.      Sarstedt M, Richter NF, Hauff S, et al. Combined importance-performance map analysis (cIPMA) in PLS-SEM: A SmartPLS 4 tutorial. Journal of Marketing Analytics. 2024; 12(4): 746–760. doi: 10.1057/s41270-024-00325-y

89.      Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science. 2015; 43(1): 115–135. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

90.      Dirgiatmo Y. Testing the discriminant validity and heterotrait–monotrait ratio of correlation (HTMT): A case in Indonesian SMEs. Emerald Publishing Limited; 2023. pp. 157–170. doi: 10.1108/S1571-03862023000033A011

91.      Kock N. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration (ijec). 2015; 11(4): 1–10. doi: 10.4018/ijec.2015010101

92.      Chin WW. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research. Psychology Press; 1998. pp. 295–336. doi: 10.4324/9781410604381

93.      Wang S, et al. Progress in PLS-SEM use in logistics and supply chain management: A structured review. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. 2024; 54(7–8): 673–704. doi: 10.1108/IJPDLM-06-2023-0200

94.      Ringle CM, Wende S, Becker JM. SmartPLS 4. SmartPLS GmbH; 2022.

95.      Becker JM, Klein K, Wetzels M. Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using reflective-formative type models. Long Range Planning. 2012; 45(5–6): 359–394. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2012.10.001

96.      Shmueli G, et al. Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing. 2019; 53(11): 2322–2347. doi: 10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189

97.      Damanpour F. Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy Of Management Journal. 1991; 34(3): 555–590. doi: 10.5465/256406

98.      Kim YY. Communication and Cross-Cultural Adaptation: An Integrative Theory. Multilingual Matters; 1991.

99.      Dye TR. Understanding public policy. Pearson; 2002.

100.   Anderson JE. Public policymaking. Houghton Mifflin; 2003.