China's Lunge Towards Sports Superpowerdom: Is it Worth it?

China is the No. 1 Economy in the world today (read here). True, there is some dispute regarding the numbers and what they represent, but at least there is no ambiguity about China's persistent push up the ladder. Announcements such as the launch of 32 new high-speed rail routes (read here) have become more common-place in recent times. These are important events no doubt, symbolising ambition, focus and determination - solid qualities that deserve mention. However, when such focus shifts from 'structured' and 'mechanical' industrial/commercial arenas into abstract spheres encompassing culture, arts or sport, it becomes a cause of concern.

This article touches on a recent article from the 'Economist', that describes one such pursuit, in the field of sport - particularly, in football (read here). Having perused the piece, I submit what I construe to be essential differences between China and the RoW in their ways and means to promote football (and sport in general):

OBJECTIVE: Qualify, Host and Win a World Cup. Great. What's not so great: The fact that motivation for doing so lies in President's wish to do so. It may also reflect national sentiment, but does it really address the 'interests and wishes' of the people?

TARGET: Targeting Kids in Schools. Great. No disagreement there.

EXECUTION:
1. Player Focused: "Making football a compulsory part of the national curriculum at schools. By 2017 some 20,000 schools are to receive new football pitches and training facilities, with the aim of creating 100,000 new players."
----- 'Compulsory', 'Creating Players' .... all reeks of an authoritarian approach, one that is not likely to win the hearts and minds of young kids. Isn't promoting love and passion the 'only' way to promote long-term interest in the game?

2. "In 2016 football will become an option in the national university-entrance exam. This could help overcome resistance among parents to their children being distracted from their academic studies by ball-kicking."
----- As if authoritarian writ was not enough, one will also have to deal with 'coercion', however subtle.

I fear, intentions aside, the 'execution plan' rather than attracting the youth, may result in a mechanical pursuit of glory, shorn of individual expression of passion and love. The Soviet Union has employed this in the past, and so has the Chinese state, but whereas 'poverty' and 'depravity' has encouraged support for such endeavours in the past, as China transitions into a middle-income economy, such writ is likely to run into problems - running counter to the original intent.

Moreover, while events such as the Olympics were vital platforms of 'power projection' during the Cold War, commanding considerable investment from states, the extent of this involvement has tapered-off of late. As a consequence, the commercialisation of sport, with its focus on the individual, has changed the state-individual dynamic. Although national pride remains a very important focus, the present generation, therefore, has a lot of expectations when it comes to their future, their finances and their long-term engagement with the sport.

Rather than locking up a strategy that can provide a questionable (at most a short-term) recourse to the problems faced by its professional football body, it would pay to invest more soft-power in a field that has traditionally relied on individual talent, drive and passion.

Extending the argument further, an individual-centered commercialisation option for its traditional Olympics-focused schools may also be useful. To the extent possible, under present circumstances. The advantage China has is 'control' over this process and its experience with phased-transitions - the economy being a big case in point.

The only question facing the Chinese Sports Leadership is:

"To Progress, or to Regress ?"