The State Sponsorship System in Numbers

The London Olympics, in terms of medals, were the true test for China. At the Beijing Olympics, the Chinese were in the right time, place and conditions; they took first place, but it was easy for a country like the U.S., used to being number one, to dismiss their performance. The London Olympics were held in a third party country, and although America took the gold, overpowering China in overall medals, China’s early leading position wasn’t overtaken until the last three days. Taking into consideration the gap in economic power between the two countries, China’s achievements are really impressive. Calling it the “best on-the-road Olympic performance” isn’t adding any embellishment or exaggeration. It’s not surprising then, that some people immediately pointed out that state-sponsored Olympic strategies have previously lead to great achievements, and then brought up the examples of Russia and Germany. Originally the first and second place Olympic powerhouses, after abandoning the state sponsorship system, their positions have been steadily sliding downwards. Currently, only China can give America a challenge on the Olympic playing field.

As someone who has consistently criticized the state sponsorship system, I’ve always opposed using Olympic achievement as the method of evaluating the state sponsorship system’s success or failure, and I admit that as a “medal machine,” state sponsorship certainly is effective. However, Japan is the world’s third largest economy, and they only took 11th place in the overall medal competition. As long as the country’s people are in good health, with a large population participating in sports, what’s wrong with not getting good results at the Olympics? Even if Russia and Germany’s Olympic glory is fading, if their populations have more athletic lifestyles, how can you say that abandoning the state sponsorship system was a failure?

However, after the closing ceremony of the London games, I did some basic arithmetic with the overall medals standings and found that the state sponsorship system’s advantage in producing medals really isn’t that dependable. That’s right – at the 1988 Hamburg Olympics, East Germany received 102 medals, surpassing America, and was second only to the USSR. This year Germany only earned 44 medals, a full 60 medals fewer than America. But in 1988, West Germany also earned 40 medals, 54 less than America’s 94 medals. So in comparison with the half of the country that didn’t use the state sponsorship system at that time, Germany also seems to have fallen behind. Accounting for the entire change in German Olympic performance as the result of abandoning the state sponsorship system is obviously taking an excessively one-dimensional view.

The most interesting is the USSR. In 1988, the USSR earned 132 medals, 38 more than the U.S.A. At the London Olympics, Russia only received 82 medals, 22 less than the U.S.’s 104 medals, which could be called a significant deterioration. Too bad people have forgotten that the USSR and Russia don’t refer to the same territory and population. What should be compared is the USSR in 1988 and all of the ex-Soviet countries today. If we patiently add together all of the ex-Soviet countries’ medal counts, the results are shocking: Russia, 82; Kazakhstan, 13; Ukraine, 20; Belarus, 13; Azerbaijan, 10; Lithuania, 6; Georgia, 7; Uzbekistan, 4; Latvia, 2; Romania, 3; Estonia, 2; Moldova, 2; Tajikistan, 1. All together, that’s 165 medals, 61 more than America. Not only is it an improvement on 1988’s 38 medal advantage, it could be called a great leap forward!

Of course, some people will say that if you separate them into several countries, the number of athletes sent to the Olympics will be greater, so an advantage in numbers makes today’s ex-Soviet nations, taken all together, more effective than the USSR was. Analyze the medal distribution for a moment and you will know this isn’t the case. Apart from ping pong, diving and a few other events that are monopolized by China, the chances of one country’s athletes taking two medals in the same event are very small. Even though America is so strong in swimming and track and field, it’s still very rare for two of their athletes to enter the top three in one event. Which is to say, if one country sends three top level competitors and can only take one medal, sending ten athletes would also just net one medal. However, in team events, competing separately splits up the most powerful players, making it hard to create a world class team. For example, in basketball the USSR was always America’s arch-enemy; it would be hard to accomplish this with the Russian or Lithuanian team.

For those accustomed to a planned economy, it’s difficult to imagine sport separated from the centrally managed state sponsorship system. However, look at the Soviet Union, which has provided China with a model for success in abandoning the state sponsorship system (or at least partially abandoning it).