By Hu Shuli

The curtains came down on the 2008 Olympics amid a double victory for China. Added to the joy of hosting a successful event was the “gold medal bumper crop” -- the 51 gold medals China won surpassed the Athens Olympics haul by 60 percent and almost doubled the number won in the Sydney Olympics.

No wonder some people excitedly declare that the impressive gold medal count fully vindicates the superiority of the “State Sports System” and say that China’s athletes should continue to march under its banner. We beg to differ.

We believe it's time to say good-bye to the “State Sports System” and launch a comprehensive reform of athletic training and the sports industry. The system affects the growth of China’s sports industry and national physical education; it underpins the sustainable development of China’s athleticism, and it is part and parcel of the reform of the political, economic and social systems.

The sports system cannot be a secluded island in China’s sweeping reforms. Further delays are not affordable.

It feels great to win Olympics gold -- and silver and bronze. It inspires patriotism and pride in joining the ranks of global sports giants. The intangible significance is overwhelming, but there is a tangible cost.

The “State Sports System” that rooted in the planned economy has dominated sports, which means that investment in gold medals comes from taxpayers’ pockets and state resources. Media reports have estimated the price tag of each gold medal is at anywhere between 60 million yuan and 700 million yuan. Liu Peng, the country’s sports chief, said that the annual government investment is 800 million yuan on sports, and the average price of each gold medal would be about 15.7 million yuan a year.

China undoubtedly spent a fortune on the “Olympic pride” of grabbing 51 gold medals. Most of the ordinary people sitting in the stadiums or in front of the television were too excited about the medals to care about the cost.

But the state is not getting a sufficient return on its investment. The “State Sports System” is focused on finding talent and grooming it in a cloistered environment to produce professional athletes. This very costly system does not contribute much to mass physical education.

Nor does it do much for the overall economy. Gold medalists can endorse products but the huge cash rewards go to a few individuals and their teams; some perks might go to related organizations and a small part might even be funneled to training programs. But the economic return to investors is likely to be nil.

The euphoria becomes the main reward, but even then, once the medal count reaches a certain level, the thrill fades and the diminishing marginal returns will occur.

China’s growth model is at an inflection point. The growing importance of the service industry and the domestic market means that sports needs to be a business, but the “State Sports System” is a monopoly. It grabs the lion’s share of resources and blocks the rise of commercial sports.

Popular spectator sports such as volleyball, basketball and tennis have not realized their commercial potential. The half-official, half-commercial Chinese football league stumbling alongside the “State Sports System” has sadly become the butt of jokes.

The “State Sports System”, like the inefficient planned economy, has outlived its usefulness. It’s past time to replace it with the market system, but such reform faces great odds because of the “gold medal obsession”. The “State Sports System” has been viewed as the most effective modus operandi for the short term, and the cost of reform will probably be fewer gold medals.

But the Beijing Olympics, which yielded 51 gold medals, has eased the public fixation with “wins” and shifted attention to the system. Not only is the cost for reform dropping and the time opportune, the pressure for change is mounting.

It is time to resume the restructuring of the sports administration, which has been on hold for a decade. But successful reform requires a strategy. The state sports monopoly has been around for decades and an overnight revolution is not feasible.

A sounder approach would be to shrink the scope of the “State Sports System,” end the state monopoly and promote the development of market-driven commercial sports. The government can shift its money and energy into encouraging mass physical education, and use the opportunity to push forward a reform of sports administrative mechanism.

The reform should also lead to a system of culture and value for sports in themselves, and not merely as a way to win medals. We hope to see China do well in international competitions, especially in the next Olympics in London, and we want to cheer the outstanding performance of Chinese athletes. But let’s not exaggerate the significance of gold medals or politicize them.

The Chinese people, who have cast off their inferiority complex, do not need affirmation from an ever-rising medal count. When this is understood, sports competition will join with mass physical education to move China from a country rich in gold medals to a country strong in athleticism.