So... I'm paraphrasing here: Starcraft takes the complexity of RTS vidya gaems and adds in a sort of fighting game pace to it. If I've got that right, makes sense to my why it's popular to even non-competitive gamers so long as ya understand what's goin' on. Action is entertaining. Lack of pace is why not-chess players don't watch chess.
Lack of structure doesn't inherently influence a community's proneness to corruption, just makes it easier to get away with. Look at established IRL sports, there's racketeering, drug abuse, foul play on and off the field, etc. Always has been. Cheaters gonna cheat, regardless of medium and motivation. Not that I'm denyin' that a lack of defined, preset, national-official rules is bad.
Pokemon and such are nowhere near as competitive as LoL and Starcraft.
That ain't true dependin' on how you define "competitive worth". They've a much bigger crowd, yes; because they're games designed to attract a competitive crowd. Pokemon 'n Smash have a niche competitive fanbase since they're also casual-aimed. 'Course, the former has been designed with competitiveness in mind since Generation 4, what with VGCs. What argument(s) would you present to support that Starcraft/LoL > competitive 'Mons/Smash?