Esports V Levels – “We Need you”

Wider reform context: where esports currently sits (and doesn’t)

The session opened with a clear explanation of the wider Level 2 and 3 reforms from Pearson’s Laura Hall, setting esports firmly within the bigger picture of the Department for Education’s Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy.

Laura reminded attendees that the current proposals are DfE’s response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR) and are still subject to consultation. Until the consultation closes on 12 January 2026 and the government publishes its response (expected in spring 2026), no one – including Pearson – can say with certainty exactly how, when, or to what extent existing BTEC qualifications will be affected.

At Level 3, the proposed future landscape is built around three main routes:

• A Levels
• T Levels
• V Levels (currently conceived primarily as A-Level–sized, 360 GLH qualifications)

Crucially, Laura highlighted that esports does not currently appear on the DfE’s indicative subject lists. Unlike some long-established sectors, esports does not yet benefit from:
Recognised occupational standards, or
Existing qualifications on key performance measures

As a result, it isn’t automatically “in scope” in the way some other subjects are. That does not mean esports is excluded – but it does mean the sector must present robust evidence and compelling arguments through the consultation to secure its place.

Pearson confirmed it is continuing to work closely with government and sector bodies to position esports as a future skills need and a legitimate educational qualification. However, Laura was very clear:
Centres themselves have as much – if not more – influence as Pearson in this process.

It is the volume and quality of centre responses that will matter most.
V Levels: size, structure and the case for a large esports qualification
One of the central technical points in the briefing was the proposed size of V Levels.

At present, the DfE has signalled an intention for V Levels to be 360 GLH – similar in size to a single A Level – so they can be combined with other V Levels or A Levels. That alone raises serious questions for subjects like esports, which are:

• Broad in scope
• Strongly project-based
• Cross-sector by design

Laura invited attendees to share their thoughts in the chat on what size an esports V Level would need to be to deliver a meaningful programme.
The responses from centres were clear and consistent:

Several practitioners argued that “at least 720 GLH, ideally 1000+” is needed to do justice to the breadth of the esports curriculum.

Others stressed that 1080 GLH (3 A Level equivalent) is the best fit, given the multiple vocational and transferable pathways involved – production, media, shoutcasting, event management, performance, psychology/sport science, business and more.

One comment summed it up powerfully: the esports qualification is “a highly specialised field with a lot of context-sensitive aspects… not being applicable if amalgamated into other areas or diluted.”

British Esports made it clear they will be recommending both:

• A small Esports V Level (360 GLH)
• A large Esports V Level (1080 GLH) and strongly encouraged centres to echo this position where they feel it reflects their learners’ needs and programme design.

Esports as a T Level? Why the sector is sceptical

Laura also explored the question of whether esports could – or should – be delivered as a T Level.

T Levels are designed for:
Learners who are already confident about a specific career direction, and
Those who are ready to commit to a single, large qualification with a substantial industry placement in a clearly defined occupational area.

In theory, esports could be framed within T Level proposals, especially under the idea of introducing new T Levels in subjects without existing occupational standards. In practice, however, both Pearson and British Esports raised serious concerns, echoed by many in the chat:

Industry placements in esports and related digital production fields are already challenging to secure in some regions. One centre noted that even for broader digital production, placements would be “difficult to find… in some areas of the UK”.

Esports is multi-occupational and cross-sector, rather than anchored to a single occupational standard. It spans coaching, production, broadcasting, management, marketing, analysis, events and more.

For many learners, esports functions as a broad exploratory vocational route, not a tightly defined occupational pipeline.

Several educators suggested that if a T Level were ever pursued, it might need to be framed as something like “Digital Production and Management with esports as the thematic focus” – but the direction from British Esports was clear: for now, the sector should focus on securing V Levels, not a T Level.

Level 2 reforms: Foundation and Occupational Certificates

The briefing also touched on the Level 2 reforms, which are happening in parallel.

At Level 2, the previous idea of multiple “buckets” has been simplified to two pathways:
Foundation Certificates (one-year programmes, primarily for progression to Level 3)
Occupational Certificates (two-year programmes, focused on progression into skilled employment)

Given that esports currently has no occupational standards, Laura explained that the most logical immediate route is to argue for a Level 2 Foundation Certificate in Esports – a one-year, progression-focused qualification that:
Builds digital, creative and teamwork skills

Prepares learners for Level 3 esports and related pathways
Acts as a bridge for learners who may have underachieved at GCSE

Again, esports does not feature on the initial list of Level 2 subjects, so the onus is on centres and sector bodies to demonstrate demand and impact.
Funding, timelines and the “moving picture”
Laura then outlined the funding implications and indicative timeline for reform.

Key points for esports centres included:
Large BTECs in sectors where T Levels already exist are being defunded sooner (e.g. business) – but esports currently sits outside this pattern, as there is no T Level or V Level in esports yet.

Smaller Level 3 esports qualifications (e.g. the 360 GLH Extended Certificate) are expected to remain funded until equivalent V Levels are introduced, currently expected from 2027/28 onwards.

At Level 2, funding for legacy qualifications will be removed as reformed Foundation and Occupational Certificates are introduced.

However, because esports is not yet assigned a clear place in the new system, the precise timing for any funding changes is not yet fixed. That uncertainty is exactly why the consultation response from centres is so critical.
Laura was very clear on one final point:

“You as a centre have as much influence on these proposals as Pearson does – if not more.”
The DfE will not simply “listen to Pearson”; they will respond to the volume and consistency of responses from centres delivering esports.

British Esports perspective: open doors, risks and opportunities
Taking over in the second half of the session, British Esports’ Head of Education, Kalam Neale, set out a comprehensive view of:

Where esports sits within current policy
Where “open doors” and opportunities lie

What the sector needs to do next

He emphasised that, from British Esports’ perspective, there is strong alignment between:
The V Level concept, and
The cross-sector nature of esports education
Kalam highlighted several national policy anchors that esports aligns with:

• Digital skills and the growth of the tech sector
• Creative industries and content creation
• Defence and security, particularly through simulation, cyber, and digital warfare applications
• STEM engagement and applied digital learning
• The Government’s ambition for two-thirds of young people to participate in higher-level learning by age 25
• The need to reduce the NEET population (circa 900,000 young people)
• Improving outcomes for SEND learners and those at risk of exclusion

Esports, he argued, is uniquely positioned as:

“A cross-sectoral tool that supports digital transformation, defence readiness, creative innovation, STEM engagement, recruitment, retention, inclusion and progression.”