The Popularity of Zwift: A Sport, Training Aid, or Game?

Zwift, the online cycling platform, occupies a contested space between sport, training aid, and video game. This study examines how cyclists and e-cyclists perceive and use the platform, with the aim of clarifying where it fits within the broader landscape of cycling and digital fitness. Its central argument is that Zwift and similar platforms will remain integral to both cycling and digital fitness, and that the community's engagement lends legitimacy to cycling esports as they move toward wider institutional recognition.

Data were gathered in early 2021 from a sample of 1,470 cyclists and e-cyclists with a mean age of 46.3 years and an average of 21.3 years of cycling experience. Findings show that 84.9% of respondents were still e-cycling at the time of the survey, and nearly 90% used Zwift either exclusively or alongside other platforms. Participants cited exercise, fitness, training, social interaction, and enjoyment as their primary motivations, and invested an average of £1,504 in dedicated indoor setups. Among e-cyclists specifically, 84.6% regarded e-cycling as central to their training, and 64.7% rode year-round.

Perceptions of the platform's nature were divided. Just over half of respondents (52.8%) classified e-cycling as a mode of cycling, 27.2% as a game, and 14.8% as both. Cost was the most frequently reported barrier, followed by concerns about the verification of race results and the possibility of cheating. These responses support the authors' conclusion that Zwift blends sporting, training, and gaming characteristics in ways that resist simple categorisation.

The study's scope is limited by a predominantly English-speaking and older sample, which constrains generalisation across geographic regions and age groups. Its findings are nonetheless positioned within the context of the International Olympic Committee's Olympic Agenda 2020+5, which encourages the development of virtual sports, and the planned 2027 Olympic Esports Games in Riyadh. The research received ethical approval from Teesside University and reports no conflicts of interest or external funding.