Author(s): LI, S., Institution: BEIJING SPORT UNIVERSITY, Country: CHINA, Abstract-ID: 2369

1.Aim and Research Questions
China has leveraged both participation in and hosting of the Games. However, the IOC evolving event portfolio - characterized by 43% variance in winter sports programming and 28% modification rate in summer sports since 2000. China’s government decision to prioritize Olympic events in the development of sport for all, ensures competitive sports achievements, it also causes a lack of sufficient consistency in sport development.
2. Theoretical Background
China has engaged in 11 consecutive Summer Olympic Games over four decades, demonstrating remarkable athletic achievements that position it as the world's third-ranked nation in both gold medal counts and overall medal tallies. This study employs policy implementation theory to examine the nuanced governance mechanisms through which state-led Olympic engagement influences sports selection priorities, and how these institutional arrangements interact with mass sports development.
3. Research Design
This study employs a mixed-methods approach to examine the interplay between international competitive objectives and domestic sports development goals in China's Olympic engagement. Through quantitative analysis of official statistical data from China's National Bureau of Statistics and historical records from IOC, combined with comparative assessments of sports participation and sports industry growth indicators.
4. Findings and Discussion
China's Olympic strategy has effectively ensured the achievement of international competitive targets while simultaneously enhancing the nation's global influence and soft power. Quantitative analysis demonstrates that Chinese athletes attaining world-leading positions in 18 Olympic events as of the Tokyo 2020 Games.
However, the study identifies three critical implementation gaps: 1) Limited achievement correlation between Olympic success and domestic sports development targets, particularly in public sports service accessibility and health literacy improvement; 2) Structural imbalance in sports funding allocation, with local governments contributing only 28.4% of total sports expenditures (2021 data), reflecting systemic over-centralization in competitive sports resource allocation; 3) Strategic vulnerability caused by IOC's event scheduling volatility, evidenced by 34% event modification rate across six Olympic cycles, which complicates long-term sports investment planning.
5. Conclusion
These findings reveal a paradox in China's Olympic engagement: While establishing global competitive supremacy through centralized resource mobilization, the current framework demonstrates limited effectiveness in achieving concurrent domestic sports development objectives. The study proposes three policy recommendations for synergistic development, including decentralized funding mechanisms, cross-sectoral resource integration protocols, and adaptive talent cultivation strategies responsive to international sports governance dynamics.