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.”
Occupational standards, SIC codes and formal recognition
Kalam also provided an update on ongoing work to formally embed esports in the wider skills and industrial framework:
British Esports is working with Skills England to have esports roles recognised within existing occupational standards (for example, ensuring “esports coach” appears alongside football, rugby or equestrian coach in coaching standards).
They are collaborating with DCMS on the development of Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes for esports – enabling the Government to track esports as an economic sector from around 2026.
Importantly, British Esports is not currently asking for standalone esports occupational standards for the purposes of V Levels, because V Levels do not require their own dedicated standards. Instead, the focus is on:
Recognising esports roles within existing standards
Ensuring the education system reflects esports as a real, growing profession
Technical Excellence Colleges (TECs) and regional opportunity
The briefing also touched on the emerging concept of Technical Excellence Colleges (TECs), which will support high-demand sectors in specific routes – especially digital, creative, and defence.
Kalam suggested that many centres already delivering esports:
With established esports arenas,
Broadcast and streaming facilities,
Staff expertise, and
Cross-curricular digital programmes
may be in prime position to become or partner with TECs in future.
He encouraged centres who see themselves in this description to reference that in their consultation response, particularly the way esports strengthens their digital and defence-related offer.
Evidence from centres: recruitment, retention, progression and inclusion
One of the most powerful sections of the briefing came when Kalam revisited data previously gathered from centres during the earlier Curriculum and Assessment Review.
Across multiple providers, the pattern was consistent:
Recruitment onto esports programmes is higher than in many traditional curriculum areas
Attendance and engagement are higher
Cohorts are diverse, with many learners:
from SEND backgrounds
who are neurodivergent
previously at risk of becoming NEET
previously disengaged from mainstream education
Achievement and success rates are strong
Value-added is often higher than other programmes for similar learner profiles
Progression into higher education, apprenticeships and employment is positive, particularly into digital, creative, media, business and sport-related routes
Esports, in short, has already proven itself as one of the most inclusive and impactful pathways for some of the learners the system finds hardest to reach.
However, as Kalam stressed, British Esports does not hold the underlying data – that sits with centres. For the consultation to be truly persuasive, the DfE needs to see:
Concrete progression statistics
Examples of learners who would likely have been NEET without esports
Outcomes for learners with EHCPs or SEND
Evidence that esports programmes have transformed attendance and engagement
That, he said, is where centres must now step up:
“We need you to tell DfE the impact of this programme and of esports education.
Without it, they may not recognise it – and it may be at risk of not being funded or not becoming a V Level.”
Global recognition and the risk of “cutting it off at the knees”
The session also highlighted how UK esports education is now recognised internationally. British Esports has:
Represented UK esports education on global stages, including in Qatar through creative industries forums
Launched the International Defence Esports Games with the Ministry of Defence, with 44 nations registering interest
One college leader, invited to speak at the end of the session, framed the risk starkly:
Their data shows esports is not an “easy route” or add-on, but one of the most beneficial and rigorous options
Many of their students would likely be NEET or disengaged without the esports course
Graduates have gone on to third-year study, internships, employment – including working directly in esports organisations
They also noted that renaming their course to emphasise “Production and Enterprise in Esports” helped parents understand that the programme is about media, coaching, social media, team management and production, not “just playing games”.
Their conclusion was simple:
If esports is removed or diluted at this stage, it would “harm the future chances of all those young people” and squander the significant investment institutions have already made in facilities and staff.
Scale of provision: 193 centres and five years of investment
British Esports shared that there are currently 193 centres delivering the BTEC in Esports.
Every one of those centres has:
Invested in staff CPD
Built or adapted specialist spaces
Created programme structures and partnerships
Developed schemes of work mapped to esports-specific skills and behaviours
The call was clear:
“We want 193 out of 193 centres to respond to this consultation.”
What happens next?
The session closed with practical next steps:
Pearson will continue to interpret the reforms and communicate funding and timeline impacts as the DfE’s position becomes clearer in 2026.
British Esports will:
Advocate for small and large Esports V Levels (360 and 1080 GLH)
Push for esports to be recognised within occupational standards and SIC codes
Support centres in shaping high-quality consultation responses
Both organisations will continue the discussion at events such as the Esports Education Summit at BET, where educators can engage with them directly about the future of esports qualifications.
The message for centres: “We need you”
The theme running through the entire briefing was simple but urgent:
Esports is not yet guaranteed a place as a distinct V Level.
The case for esports is strong – but it must be made clearly, with evidence, by those delivering it.
Centres’ voices – via the consultation – will determine what happens next.
For esports to secure:
A small Esports V Level (360 GLH)
A large Esports V Level (1080 GLH)
A Level 2 Foundation Certificate in Esports
And recognition as a cross-sector, inclusive, future-facing qualification
every school, college and provider delivering esports must now:
Complete the DfE consultation before 12 January 2026, explicitly advocating for esports.
Provide data and examples on recruitment, attendance, SEND and NEET impact, achievement and progression.
Highlight investment in facilities, staffing and infrastructure that depends on a continued esports pathway.
Align esports with national priorities – digital, creative, defence, STEM, social mobility, NEET reduction and SEND outcomes.
Share the message across networks so that all esports centres, not just those on the call, are aware and engaged.
NTesports will continue to support centres through this process and amplify the sector’s voice.
The future of esports as a recognised, funded qualification pathway is still in play – but only if the sector now speaks up, together.
