By Austin Miller, GTM Lead, Esport Supply
A good esports facility feasibility study shows whether a school or university can realistically turn an idea for a gaming space into a facility that students will use and the institution can afford to operate. It examines student demand, available space, technology requirements, construction costs, staffing, and ongoing expenses before recommending whether the project should move forward.
What I appreciate about a feasibility study is that it forces everyone to question the original idea before the university commits to it. Maybe the institution needs a smaller facility, or perhaps an existing room makes more sense than a new building. Those discoveries can save considerable time and money while helping administrators understand what their campus actually needs.
What Would an Esports Facility Feasibility Study Actually Look Like?
Imagine a university with an active esports club and a 2,000-square-foot room that’s barely being used. Administrators are considering converting it into a gaming facility with 24 computers, a small competition area, and space for students to gather between classes.
The first question isn’t whether 24 gaming stations will fit. It’s whether students will actually use them. The university could survey students, examine participation in existing gaming activities, and talk with coaches, recreation staff, and student organizations. I’d want to understand what a normal Tuesday afternoon looks like, not just how many people might show up for the grand opening.
Next comes the physical space. Can the room accommodate the proposed stations without feeling crowded? Is there enough electrical capacity? Can the cooling system handle the additional equipment? Will networking or accessibility improvements be necessary? Those infrastructure questions often determine whether a renovation is practical or significantly more expensive than expected.
What Would the Financial Assessment Include?
The financial assessment should examine the entire project, not just the gaming equipment. Computers, monitors, furniture, and displays are obvious expenses, but installation, building modifications, staffing, maintenance, software, and eventual equipment replacement also matter.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Life Cycle Costing Manual explains how building investments can be evaluated by considering costs over their useful life rather than focusing exclusively on the initial purchase. Although the guidance was developed for federal facilities rather than esports projects, the underlying principle is useful when universities compare options with different equipment, infrastructure, and operating costs.
I’d want to compare at least two realistic options. One might be a smaller recreational gaming lab with limited renovation. Another could include competition features, broadcasting equipment, and spectator space. Putting those alternatives side by side gives university leadership a better understanding of what additional spending would accomplish.
There’s also a difference between identifying potential benefits and promising financial returns. Esports may contribute to student engagement, campus activities, and recruiting conversations, but those outcomes shouldn’t be treated as guaranteed enrollment increases or revenue. A credible study makes its assumptions clear.
What Do Real University Feasibility Studies Look Like?
Kansas State University offers a useful example. Architecture firm PGAV studied whether underutilized space in the K-State Student Union could become an esports arena. The work examined space requirements, conceptual design, and estimated project costs for a proposed facility of approximately 4,000 to 6,000 gross square feet.
What I find interesting is that the project began by examining the possibilities within an existing campus building. Evaluating the existing building first helped ground the concept in the campus’s actual space and budget constraints.
The University of Massachusetts Lowell offers another example. JCJ Architecture examined how esports could be introduced into University Crossing, an existing campus hub. The study involved university representatives and student users, helping the institution consider how a gaming facility could fit alongside other campus activities. UMass Lowell subsequently opened an esports arena in University Crossing in 2025, illustrating how an early feasibility effort can help inform a facility that eventually moves forward.
Neither example should be treated as a universal blueprint. What they demonstrate is the value of examining a specific building, a specific campus population, and a defined program rather than starting with assumptions about what every esports arena should include.
What Should the Final Recommendation Tell the University?
Let’s return to our hypothetical 2,000-square-foot room. Suppose the findings show that a recreational gaming lab is practical, but adding a dedicated competition area would create crowding and require expensive infrastructure upgrades.
The recommendation might be to proceed with a smaller facility, investigate another location, or develop the project in phases. That gives university leadership a practical next step rather than simply another set of drawings to review.
For institutions still working through the broader justification, our article on building a business case for university esports addresses how those investments connect to institutional priorities.
I’ve seen how quickly a conversation about an esports facility can turn into a conversation about what the finished room should look like. That’s understandable because the visuals are exciting, and everyone has ideas about what would make the space impressive. But the real value of a feasibility study is finding out what the university can build, afford, and operate before those ideas become expensive commitments. A good study doesn’t need to produce the most ambitious recommendation. It needs to produce one the university can actually act on.
