The system of public stadiums and gymnasiums is chaotic, with "reform" but no "reform"

At present, there are as many as eight management systems of public stadiums and gymnasiums in China. Including contract responsibility system, contract responsibility system, overall management, differential management, business target responsibility system, entrusted responsibility system, lease system, self-supporting responsibility system and so on. Among them, the difference management and management contract responsibility system account for a large share, but in Guangzhou, Beijing and other places, few stadiums adopt the entrusted management responsibility system and the "property management" model of stadiums [7]. Although the coexistence of the above-mentioned systems is the result of reform, it is not difficult to see that some systems are still the old models left over from the planned economy, with a strong "administrative management model" color; Although some systems embody some characteristics of market economy, they can only be used as transitional forms in the process of stadium reform. These systems need to be deepened if stadiums are to truly embark on the road of enterprise management. It has been 17 years since the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China explicitly requested in the Notice on Further Development of Sports that "stadiums and gymnasiums should gradually realize enterprise-oriented and semi-enterprise management". Why is there no substantial progress in the management system reform of public stadiums and gymnasiums in China? The key point is that we have not carried out targeted reforms based on the "state-owned assets" nature of public stadiums and gymnasiums, but have always regarded public stadiums and gymnasiums as "institutions", and most of their reforms are carried out in accordance with the reform model of administrative departments or institutions, thus making the reforms lack pertinence and naturally "reform" rather than "reform".