Person McPerson stated matter-of-factly early on that chess was a sport. That's not exactly uncontested.
In the UK it was recently ruled by the High Court that
bridge is not a sport. (It came up because some kinds of funding are reserved for sports.) They decided that being mentally challenging is not sufficient; there needs to be a physical element relevant to the outcome. So even though there's a physical element to chess - moving the pieces - your performance in this regard is not relevant to the outcome of the match, and if you were instructing someone else to make those moves on your behalf it would still be you that was playing. In contrast, the physical element of e.g. rifle shooting - positioning the rifle in the right place - is relevant to the outcome and couldn't be done by someone else on your behalf without changing who was actually taking part.
At the same time, of course, the Olympic Committee has invited the governing bodies of chess and bridge to apply to be included in future Olympics. Although "invited to apply" isn't quite the same as "declared a sport".
At the end of the day, what matters is what you want to do with your definition of "sport". If, as (presumably) in the case of allocating UK government funds, your goal is to give money to organisations which promote physical fitness, tackle obesity, and so on, then you'll want the physical aspect to be important. If you want to set up a big international competition showcasing global talent, as (presumably) in the case of the Olympics, then the physical aspect is going to be much less important.
In either case, Bartending is definitely a sport and I don't know who would ever want to question that.
