|  | Feature | No.59 May 2010 |

Sport and Globalisation: Elite Sport Development Considerations
Pak-Kwong Chung
Introduction
Globalisation has been a popular term since the late 20th century. Robertson (1992) interprets globalisation as the consolidation of the world into a whole space – in other words, “a global community”. He further explains that globalisation is “the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole”. Thibault (2009) summarised from the literature on globalisation and identified the important factors that play a key role in the increased movement toward globalisation. These factors include pressures from transnational corporations, international capital, neoliberal economies, and right-wing governments where markets have become deregulated and trade relations among countries have increased. The advancement of communication technologies, particularly the internet, has also enhanced the abilities of communication and exchange between individuals, organisations, and governments. All this in turn, has contributed to globalisation in the political, economic, social, and cultural spheres. In discussions of application of these spheres, sport plays an important role. Sport, at the elite level, has had great influence on globalisation. Some of the best examples are the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). Both of these world sporting organisations have larger memberships (203 and 208 respectively) than the membership of United Nation (UN), which is 192 countries (in 2008). The Olympics and the World Cup not only attract millions of people around the world to watching the games and matches, but also offer a platform to small nations of the world for interactions and exchanges. This is unrivaled by any other cultural or political body, even the UN (Tomlinson & Young, 2006).
Influences of Globalisation on Elite Sport Development
Globalisation has been beneficial for sport, especially elite sport. It increases opportunities for athletes, coaches, sports scientists, sports administrators and leaders to exchange and interact on the ideas and information related to the elite development and training system. Achieving international and especially Olympic sporting success has become increasingly important to a growing number of countries. Both politicians and the media count medals as a measure for international success, despite the IOC’s protestation that the Olympic medal table is not an order of merit. Elite sporting success has frequently been regarded as a resource valuable for its malleability and its capacity to help achieve a wide range of non-sporting objectives. As a result, governments have become more willing to intervene directly in elite sport development by making considerable financial investments, thus leading to the increasing institutionalization of elite sport systems (Green & Houlihan, 2005). Under the globalisation processes, which involves multidirectional movements of people, practices, customs and ideas, Green & Oakley (2001) attempted to find out whether the current trend of sport has developed toward uniformity in (global) elite sport development systems, or whether room remains for diversity in the development of these systems in different countries. They found similarities between the former totalitarian regimes [the former Eastern Bloc’s, primarily the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and the Soviet Union] and countries such as Australia and Canada in areas like systematic sifting of school-age children as a means of identifying the potential elite, the development of specialist academies and the use of public money to support individual elite athletes. They concluded that while it remains to be seen whether the West’s increasingly insatiable desire for elite sporting excellence, on the scale achieved by the former Eastern Bloc, results in a (globally) uniform approach to building model of elite sport development, it would be erroneous to preclude the possibility of diversity, uniqueness or distinctiveness from any future debate on the global development of elite sport systems in different countries.
The Common Ingredients of Elite Sport Training System
Maguire (1999) revealed that at the level of global elite sport, success in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries involves a contest between systems located within a global configuration. A number of aspects have been identified which are key to such sporting success. These include: the identification of human resources (athletes); methods of coaching and training; efficiency of the sport organisation; and the depth of knowledge of sport medicine and sport science. From 1952 to 1988, the Eastern Bloc countries, the former GDR and Soviet Union in particular were in the vanguard of developing sporting excellence as well as producing Olympic champions. According to Merkel (1995), the GDR used four key ingredients to achieve sporting miracle. These ingredients were:

- scientifically organised and rational selection of boys and girls in their early childhood;
- best possible facilities and an organised approach to coaching and training;
- extensive networks of support by highly qualified scientists from all relevant branches;
- efforts in a very restricted range of sports, particularly the Olympic sports, and those where there was some kind of evidence of a “German tradition”

Clumpner (1994) indicated that the systems for Olympic success have become more professional, targeted and managed in their approach. The development of elite sport institute networks has become more sophisticated in the last two decades. The similarities in approach to elite sport in the Western countries are:

1. a clear understanding about the role of the different agencies involved and an effective communication network which maintains the system;
2. simplicity of administration through common sporting and political boundaries;
3. an effective system for the statistical identification and monitoring of the progress of talented and elite athletes;
4. provision of sports services to create an excellence culture in which all members of the team (athletes, coaches, managers, scientists) can interact with one another in a formal and informal way;
5. well structured competitive programmes with ongoing international exposure;
6. well developed and specific facilities with priority access for elite athletes;
7. the targeting of resources on a relatively small number of sports through identifying those that have a real chance of success at the world level;
8. comprehensive planning for each sport‘s needs;
9. a recognition that excellence costs, with appropriate funding for infrastructure and people; and
10. lifestyle support and preparation for life after sport.

Items 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 listed by Clumpner (1994) coincide with the ingredients used in GDR elite sport training as presented by Merkel (1995).
Based on the previous research, Bosscher, et al (2009) proposed a nine pillar model as a basic analytical framework of sports policy factors that lead to international sporting success. These 9 pillars in this model are:

1. Financial support;
2. organisation and structure of sport policies;
3. foundation and participation;
4. talent identification and development system;
5. athletic and post-career support;
6. training facilities;
7. coaching provision and coach development;
8. international/national competition; and
9. scientific research.

Among the 9 pillars, Bosscher, et al (2009) have identified 4 pillars as the key success drivers (financial resources, athletic career support, training facilities and coach development) and 3 as under-developed areas (talent identification and development systems, scientific research and coaches’ provisions) where nations may gain a competitive advantage. They concluded that elite sporting success is more the result of a strategic planning process where countries invest in a blend of pillars.
The Elite Training Systems in Hong Kong and China
Although Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China and a cosmopolitan city, it has its own elite sport training system which is independent from the elite training system of Mainland China. Elite sport training in Hong Kong is mainly run by the Hong Kong Sports Institute (HKSI). There are 14 sports, namely Athletics, Badminton, Billiard Sport, Cycling, Fencing, Karatedo, Rowing, Squash, Swimming, Table-tennis, Tenpin Bowling, Triathlon, Windsurfing, and Wushu currently supported at the Institute. With funding from the SAR government, the HKSI adopts a one-stop-shop approach (Figure 1) in providing support to the athletes in areas of coaching and training, athlete welfare and career development, sports science and sports medicine, fitness and conditioning, sport facilities and resources management. In this approach, the athletes are put into the centre. With support in the aforementioned areas, athletes are developed and trained to strive for sporting excellence at major sport competitions, including the Olympic Games, Asian Games, and the Asian and World Championships of the individual sports. The administration and management structure of this elite training system is similar to those of most western countries, such as Australia, Canada, and the UK.
Figure 1: The administration and management structure
China has become a sport giant in the 21st century. Chinese athletes have achieved remarkable success at the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games by capturing 51 gold medals and taking over the number one position from the USA in the medal count of the Games. Although Chinese elite training has also benefited from globalisation practices such as sending swimmers to be trained in Australia and the USA, and employing foreign coaches to strengthen coaching of national teams, its elite sport training system is unique and distinguished from the approach used by most western countries.
The Chinese elite sport system has been derived from the former Soviet Union system in the 1950s but gradually developed to its own character in the 1980s. It is called “Juguo Tizhi” in Chinese, which is translated as “whole-country support system”. This system channels all sport resources of the country into elite sport and effectively produces hundreds of thousands of young elite athletes in pursuit of ideological superiority and national status. The main characteristics of this system are the centralised management and administration as well as guaranteed financial and human resources from the whole country to ensure maximum support to elite sport (Hong, Wu, & Xiong, 2005). Under the centralised administrative and management structure, staff who are working in elite sport related organisations, including those in the National Olympic Committee and National Sporting Bodies, which are normally public bodies and independent from the central governments in most countries, are civil servants.
The structure in developing elite athletes is well organised and systematic. Taking selection of athletes as an example, when boys and girls between the ages of 6 and 9 years old are identified with talent in a particular sport, they will join local sports schools throughout the country. Here, they are trained 3 hours a day and 4 to 5 days a week. After a period of hard training, the promising ones will be promoted to semi-professional training, in which they will train 4 to 5 hours a day and 5 to 6 days a week. From there the ones with potential are selected for the provincial sports schools or training centres. Those young athletes who live on campus will train 4 to 6 hours a day and 5 to 6 days a week. Their aim is to reach the second stage and become professionals in provincial teams and eventually to reach the third stage – becoming members of the national squads and Olympic teams. The selection system is brutal and is the core of the whole-country support system for elite sports. In 2004, there were about 400,000 young boys and girls training at more than 3000 sport schools throughout China. Only 5% will reach the top. With this whole-country support system and additional resources injected into elite sport, China has demonstrated continuing success at the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games.
Prior to the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, it was predicted that the whole-country support system would be changed, and the China General Administration of Sport (the Chinese Sports Ministry) and its numerous subsidiaries would be dissolved after the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Firstly, the central government poured huge sums of money into the 2008 Games for political purposes, but it would not be able to maintain such a huge investment in elite sport after the Games. By following the direction of the central government, the provincial governments have also committed to nurture and train elite athletes for the national teams and reward them when they win medals. It creates a huge financial burden to the local governments for paying the rewards, wages, pensions and other related costs. Secondly, the central government in the long run would put greater effort to push sport to the market and promote sport for all and healthy living among the ordinary people, rather than focus its resources on elite sport development. Thirdly, the Chinese will move to more practical and urgent social and economic issues and will be more interested in their living standards and working conditions. With increasing economic success and a growing subscription to mature and liberal political views, sporting patriotism will gradually lose its important position in Chinese people’s lives (Hong, Wu, & Xiong, 2005).
It has been almost two years since hosting the Beijing Games, and the whole-country support system is still firmly intact in the elite sport system. It is believed that the historical success of Chinese athletes at the Beijing Games has prolonged this change process. Although nobody knows when this change will happen for this whole-country support system, it is expected. With the influence of globalisation and China’s open policy, it is envisaged that the change will move towards the western and global approach.
Conclusion
Globalisation benefits sport development, especially elite sport. It facilitates communication and exchanges among athletes, coaches, sports scientists, sports administrators and leaders of different countries on the ideas and information related to elite sport training and development. Through these global interactions, countries can share and learn from each other the most effective ways in running their elite training programmes. In the effort of achieving international and especially Olympic sporting success, the Eastern Bloc countries, primarily the former GDR and Soviet Union, have demonstrated their successes in identifying potential athletes in their early childhood, developing specialist academies to support the coaching and training, as well as using public money to support their elite training systems. China has learned from the former Soviet Union and further developed its own elite training system. Its main characteristics include centralized management and administration as well as guaranteed financial and human resources of the central government to ensure maximum support of elite sport development. This whole-country support system brought Chinese athletes to their best-ever success at the 2008 Olympic Games. However, this highly centralized system has created huge financial burdens to both central and provincial governments; therefore, it is under great pressure to reform. It is expected that when the reform takes place, the Chinese elite sport system will move towards a globally recognized approach, which includes effective talent identification, scientific coaching and training, applications of sport medicine and sport science, efficient management and administration, effective communication network in the elite training system, well structured competitive programmes with ongoing international exposure, career development and preparation for life after sport for athletes, and sufficient and sustainable funding support.
References
Bosscher, V. D., Knop, P. D., Bottenburg, M. V., Shibli, S., & Bingham, J. (2009). Explaining international sporting success: An international comparison of elite sport systems and policies in six countries. Sport Management Review, 12, 113-116.
Clumpner, R. A. (1994). 21st century success in international competition. In R. Wilcox (Eds.), Sport in the global (pp. 353-363). Morgantown, WV: Fitness information Technology Inc.
Green, M., & Houlihan, B. (2005). Elite sport development, policy learning and political priorities. London and New York: Routledge.
Green, M., & Oakley, B. (2001). Elite sport development systems and playing to win: uniformity and diversity in international approaches. Leisure Studies, 20, 247-267.
Hong, F., Wu, P., & Xiong, H. (2005). Beijing ambitions: An analysis of the Chinese elite sports system and its Olympic strategy for the 2008 Olympic Games. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 22(4), 510-529.
Maguire, J. (1999). Global sport: Identities, societies, civilizations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Merkel, U. (1995). The German government and the politics of sport and leisure in the 1990s: An interim report. In S. Fleming., M. Talbot., & A. Tomlinson (Eds.), Policy and politics in sport, physical education and leisure (pp. 95-108). Eastbourne: Leisure Studies Association.
Robertson, R. (1992). Globalisation: Social theory and global culture. New York: Russell Sage.
Thibault, L. (2009). Globalizataion of sport: An inconvenient truth. Journal of Sport Management, 23, 1-20.
Tomlinson, A., & Young, C. (2006). Culture, politics, and spectacle in the global sports events: An introduction. In A. Tomlinson & C. Young (Eds.), National identity and global sports events (pp. 1-14). Albany, NY: State university of New York Press.
Contact
Prof. Pak-Kwong Chung
Department of Physical Education
Hong Kong Baptist University
Hong Kong, China
Email: pkchung@hkbu.edu.hk

http://www.icsspe.org/