At the Olympics, as in geopolitics, China is locked in a continuing battle for global dominance with the US. In the all-important gold medal tally at the Tokyo Games three years ago, the Americans edged their Chinese rivals by 39 golds to 38; in Paris last month, they finished with 40 apiece.
When it comes to the Paralympics, however, China leaves the US (and everyone else) in the dust. At each of the past five Summer Paralympics – dating back to 2004 – China’s gold medal tally has been, at a minimum, the same as the second- and third-placed countries combined. In Paris, as of this morning, they have 73 – with the UK and US trailing at 37 and 27, respectively.
Many of the reasons for this success mirror China’s success at the Olympic Games, starting with almost limitless funding from the state.
China is not the only country to have spent its way to the top. After all, when Team GB returned from Atlanta in 1996 with a pitiful single gold medal (who else but Steve Redgrave and Matthew Pinsent), an injection from the National Lottery meant funding rose from £5m per year before Atlanta to £37m by Sydney 2000 and then up to £215m by London 2012 – with corresponding leaps in the medal table. The spend on Paralympics over that period went from £4m in Sydney to £31m in London up to £54m for Tokyo.
Compare that with China where the government’s annual budget for sport is estimated to be more than ¥23.3bn (£2.4bn), much of which gets funnelled into the elite sports systems of the Olympic and Paralympic programs. But for China, it’s about more than just money.
The country’s sporting excellence has been built on a concept known as juguo tizhi, or “whole-nation system”, which was designed to mobilise whatever resources are necessary to achieve success. And while the term was originally applied solely to the country’s sporting framework, it worked so well over the decades that President Xi Jinping now uses it to underpin China’s quest for global tech dominance too.
Yes, the money provides superior training facilities and financial incentives for athletes. But the system comes into its own in areas such as a strategic focus on sports that China can dominate which also have a high medal count, such as diving, table tennis, weightlifting and, more recently, shooting. Then, perhaps its most distinctive feature, there’s a patriotic buy-in at all levels in the desire to bring glory to the motherland.
Of course, any country that chose to focus more money and national attention on the Olympics could achieve this as well, but there are other reasons more specific to China itself that explain its Paralympic success.
In the US in particular, many Paralympians are injured army veterans. This is not the case in China, where many Paralympians emerge from poorer, rural areas and may have congenital diseases. This allows China to maximise its talent identification and development advantages, with many athletes entering Paralympic programmes early in life, often through state-run schools and sports academies for people with disabilities.
That years-long extra lead time makes a significant difference. Take the para athletics events in Tokyo, for example, where China dominated the US in track and field gold medals by 27 to 10.
China draws another competitive advantage from the size of its population. The International Paralympic Committee launched its WeThe15 movement before Tokyo to draw attention to the estimated 15% of people globally who live with disabilities. In China, that 15% equates to 210 million people, equalling the population of Brazil.
And at the Paralympics, sports are further subdivided into classifications for different impairments. For example, there are 16 gold medals for the men’s 100m and another 13 for the women’s. China does not have entrants in every single race – each National Paralympic Committee, or NPC, is limited to 40 male athletes and 33 female athletes in para athletics, and there are 164 medal events in the sport – but its population means it can field many elite athletes, and that only the most competitive Chinese athletes get selected. If there’s a Chinese athlete in your race, there’s a good chance they will finish on the podium.
While China has already surged into a lead it won’t relinquish in Paris, there are still areas for improvement – most obviously on the societal side. Paralympians get a boost every four years in China’s public consciousness – although, a week into the Paralympics, that spotlight has already dimmed significantly – but people with disabilities in China are otherwise kept largely in the background.
My first involvement with the Paralympics came when I was commentating at the 2008 Paralympics in Beijing. The whole experience was a highlight of my journalism career, but away from the venues it was a different story, with even the most basic accessibility sorely lacking. Unfortunately, little has changed since then. Societal integration of people with disabilities remains a challenge in China and stands in stark contrast to the more inclusive policies found in many other countries today.
Zhang Haidi, former head of the China Disabled Persons’ Federation, has been rightly lauded for her excellent advocacy work on behalf of the country’s disabled population, sporting and otherwise. However, while China boasts numerous champions at the top of the Paralympic medal table, Zhang remains a singular figure in the broader push for disability rights. Until more voices join her cause and meaningful changes are made, China’s Paralympic success, though remarkable, will continue to feel somewhat hollow.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
