A Comparative Study On The Governance Characteristics Of Competitive Sports In The United States,Germany And China

As the competition of global competitive sports becomes extremely fierce,the governance of competitive sports has been paid more and more attention by countries all over the world.The United States,Germany and China are the world’s major and powerful countries in competitive sports.They belong to the Americas,Europe and Asia.They are typical representatives of the governance of competitive sports on various continents.This research mainly compares the governance characteristics of competitive sports in the United States,Germany and China from the aspects of governance concept,governance structure,governance process and governance effect.At the same time,it summarizes the experience of competitive sports governance in the United States and Germany,and provides a useful reference for China to promote the modernization of competitive sports govern As the competition of global competitive sports becomes extremely fierce,the governance of competitive sports has been paid more and more attention by countries all over the world.The United States,Germany and China are recognized as the world’s major and powerful countries in competitive sports.They belong to the Americas,Europe and Asia.They are typical representatives of competitive sports governance on all continents.This study mainly compares the governance characteristics of competitive sports in the United States,Germany and China from the aspects of governance process,governance concept,governance structure,governance process and governance effect.Through a comprehensive comparison,we can clearly see the advantages of China’s competitive sports governance.At the same time,summarize the governance experience of the United States and Germany,and provide a useful reference for China to promote the modernization of competitive sports governance and the high-quality development of competitive sports.Based on this,this research adopts research methods such as literature method,historical research method,comparative research method,case analysis method,etc.,guided by governance theory,from the perspective of multidisciplinary theory such as international politics,management,history,etc.Taking the governance of competitive sports in Germany and China as the research object,a comparative study is carried out on the governance of the national team,professional sports and youth reserve sports talents of the three countries.The main conclusions are as follows:1.On the evolution of competitive sports governance.The common feature of the three countries is that they have all experienced the development from a single subject to multiple subjects,from a single governance goal to a comprehensive goal,from a single governance means to a combination of multiple means and putting national interests in an important position.The main differences are: there are differences in the evolution direction of competitive sports governance structure,governance choices in the same period and the way the government participates in governance.Enlightenment to China: The reform of competitive sports governance should closely follow the pace of national development and reform,dynamically adjust government functions according to the situation,be based on the actual development of the country,strengthen the confidence of China’s competitive sports governance path,and take into account political interests and social humanistic demands.2.On the basis of competitive sports governance logic.The United States pursues liberalism and amateurism,Germany advocates the values of freedom and democracy,and China is guided by the core socialist values.The United States pursues a free market economy,Germany implements a social market economy model,and China implements a socialist market economy system.The United States advocates freedom,individualism and grassroots autonomy.Germany has a long tradition of social autonomy and developed sports organizations.China’s social governance tradition is dominated by the state.Due to the different logical basis,the governance of competitive sports in the Three Kingdoms is different.3.On the governance structure of competitive sports.(1)National team level: The United States belongs to a socially-led governance structure,and Germany also adopts a socially-led governance structure.The two countries have clear legal arrangements for the powers of governance subjects,equality between governance subjects,and two-way interaction of power operations.However,the role of the US government is smaller than that of Germany,and China belongs to The government-led structure has obvious institutional advantages and outstanding advantages,and power runs from top to bottom,but the legal division of the powers of governance subjects is vague,and there is a subordinate relationship between governance subjects.(2)Professional sports level: The United States belongs to an independent entity-based governance structure,with high independence of the alliance,giving priority to protecting the interests of investors,and equality of governance subjects.Germany is a self-governing type under the association model,and the alliance is relatively independent,focusing on safeguarding the interests of multiple subjects and the status of governance subjects Equality,but lack of government supervision in the two countries,China adopts an association management structure,the league lacks independence,the interests of the association are given priority,and the governing bodies are unequal.(3)The youth reserve sports talent level: the United States and Germany belong to the social-led governance structure,and China belongs to the government-led type;the United States and Germany have multiple governance subjects,and China relies on government governance and has strong organizational and mobilization capabilities;The relationship is relatively loose.China has a “strong government-weak society”relationship.The density of grassroots sports organizations is the highest in Germany,followed by the United States and the lowest in China.4.In the competitive sports governance process.(1)National team level: The United States has close coordination among the governing bodies,and the German governing bodies also focus on cooperation,but the government’s lack of coordination makes the reform slow.China,under the leadership of the government,concentrates its efforts on key breakthroughs.It has strong organizational leadership and obvious advantages,but the governance body Insufficient coordination;the United States relies on legal governance,Germany uses legal and economic means,and China relies on administrative means;all three countries continue to increase funding,prioritize key projects,and pay attention to funding assessment,but the US and Germany distribution plans are more detailed;The degree of autonomy of sports organizations is higher than that of China,but government governance is “absent”.(2)Professional sports level: American professional sports laws and leagues have sound internal systems,high profits,and reasonable distribution of benefits.League decision-making is highly independent,and power operations are constrained.German professional sports laws and systems are also relatively sound,but the internal systems are relatively conservative,and benefits are distributed.Reasonable,there is a power supervision mechanism with the board of supervisors as the core,China’s professional sports laws and internal systems are not perfect,the investment is single,the distribution of interests is unreasonable,the decision-making is subject to external interference,and the power supervision mechanism is imperfect.(3)Youth reserve sports talent level: China has a certain gap with the United States and Germany in terms of collaboration,decision-making,autonomous mechanism,competition activities,and integration of sports and education;the United States uses legal means to govern,Germany uses various governance methods,and China relies on administrative means to promote.However,the US and Germany’s emphasis on autonomy leads to loose external supervision and failure of organizational governance.Finally,based on the conclusions drawn from the above comprehensive comparison,aiming at the practical difficulties of China’s competitive sports governance,and drawing on the governance experience of the United States and Germany,this paper puts forward the practical orientation and fundamental compliance of China’s competitive sports governance reform,and builds the national team level,The governance structure of the professional sports level and the youth reserve sports talent level has been formulated and the specific realization path has been formulated.At the same time,the optimization strategy of the governance process at the national team level,the professional sports level and the youth reserve sports talent level has been proposed.