Can China sustain its Olympic dream?
China's second-best finish at Athens has spurred dreams of a gold rush in Beijing in 2008. But the sober fact remains: Beijing pays a high price for each gold medal won
By Ching Cheong
THERE is little doubt that most Chinese want their country to trump the United States and win the largest number of medals at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. But at what cost?
Jia Hu diving his way to yet another gold for China in the sport. - AFP
Some cautious voices have been heard above the nationwide jubilation following China's success in Athens, and sobering figures cited to point out the price the Chinese will have to pay for sporting supremacy.
To be sure, the multitude of Chinese have every reason to feel they are within striking distance of overtaking the United States as No. 1.
After all, China won a total of 32 gold, 17 silver and 14 bronze medals, the world's second-best result in terms of gold and third in terms of the total number of medals.
It took its first gold only in 1984. Twenty years later, it was only three behind the US. Come 2008, with homeground advantage in Beijing, there is already talk that China can win between 35 and 40 golds.
But not everyone is euphoric. Mr Yuan Weiming, director of the State Sports General Administration (SSGA), for instance, believes China is still far from the 'sports giant' status which millions of his countrymen think it already enjoys.
He is no party-pooper. To begin with, China's medal tally in Athens has come at a price stiffer than what its major competitors forked out.
Track and field: Chinese hurdler Liu Xiang won one of only two gold medals in the category for China in Athens. -- AP
It is estimated that for each gold medal won at Athens, China spent between 200 million yuan (S$42 million) and 625 million yuan, depending on different calculations.
Mr Li Liyan, a fellow at the SSGA Research Institute, says SSGA's annual budget jumped from 1 billion yuan at the Seoul Olympics in 1988 to 5 billion yuan at the Sydney Olympics in 2000.
Between 2000 and this year, China spent 20 billion yuan to prepare for Athens, which works out to 625 million yuan for every gold won.
However, Mr Liu Fumin, deputy director of the SSGA's Economics Department, says it would be more realistic to deduct from the total budget all administrative and indirect costs.
The funds spent directly on training amounted to about 6.7 billion yuan, which works out to about 200 million yuan for every gold.
Swimming: Breastroker Luo Xuejuan was China's only gold-medal winner in a sport dominated by the US. -- AFP
But even at this much lower estimate, the cost for every gold is still very high compared with Russia, which, until Athens, China regarded as its closest competitor.
The SSGA estimates that Russia spent a total of 800 million yuan over the past four years preparing for Athens. Since it grabbed 27 gold medals, that means each cost less than 30 million yuan.
This should not be a surprise, given that it takes China four to six times more energy than advanced countries to produce per US dollar of gross domestic product.
Furthermore, Chinese sport capabilities are not so broadly based. The ratio of gold to total medals, a good gauge of balance, is disproportionately high - 51 per cent, against 34 and 29 per cent for the US and Russia respectively, the two countries with a higher number of total medals than China.
China did not do all that well in track and field and swimming, the two categories yielding the most medals and traditionally the core sports of the Olympic Games.
Basketball: Even with NBA star Yao Ming, China cannot hope to compete with a US team with depth of squad. -- REUTERS
Despite China's Project 119, which was designed to overcome its weakness in these two areas, it managed only two golds in track and field and one in swimming, making it the 11th and 10th, respectively, in the world league.
Its failure in the 'big-ball' games - football and basketball - would also hamper its bid to challenge American dominance in the sports world.
At a different level, there are Chinese who feel that though gold medals from Athens had boosted national pride and enhanced solidarity, a mad rush for them would not be in the long-term interest of sports development.
Mr Wu Shaozu, a former director of SSGA, once lamented that the current set-up as well as prevailing mentality had turned this government arm into a machine focused on winning gold medals - to the detriment of other areas that needed development.
In a recent article on the People's Daily website, he was quoted as saying that if one sincerely wanted the Olympic gold medals, one should invest in promoting sports at the mass level.
He stressed that 'our sports authority had forgotten that the foremost aim of developing sports was to enhance the health of our people, not to grab gold'.
He reminded his readers that since the end of World War II, the Japanese had, on average, grown taller by 12cm whereas the Chinese managed only 4cm.
This, he argued, explained why the Japanese achieved third place in swimming, a sport that demands bursts of energy, while China had to be content with 10th.
'There is nothing wrong with vying for gold but China needs to know that professionalism in sports will be hard to sustain unless sports itself is broadly based,' he wrote.
