It is a widely-held belief that the Chinese team will perform well in Beijing. Some of the more optimistic analysts (including me) predict that China will achieve first place in the medals table, ousting the United States from a position it has held since 1996. The Chinese authorities have been remarkably coy in public about their ambitions for Beijing other than to say that they hope that China will "challenge the USA's dominant position in 2008". By contrast, the United Kingdom, which will host the 2012 Olympic Games in London, has been absolutely explicit that its "ultimate goal" is to achieve fourth place in 2012. So, can the United Kingdom learn any lessons from China in order to realise its ambitions?

Sports administrators in Australia, a nation which punches well above its weight in sport, place great stock in the saying "more money in equals more medals out". While money on its own cannot guarantee sporting success, it can provide access to the components of a world-class elite sports system. These include: employing the best coaches and coaching methods; effective talent development systems; innovation in sports science and medicine; and regular participation in international competition.

China has made success in the Beijing Olympic Games a matter of government policy and to this end has invested nearly £8bn on the wages of athletes and coaches, improving training facilities and providing state-of-the-art equipment. If China won 100 medals in Beijing, it would be at an average cost of nearly £80m per medal.

In the 2006 Budget, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, announced £600m of funding for elite sport in the UK to support our athletes until 2012. The British Olympic Association estimates that to secure fourth place in the medals table will require 60 medals, which equates to funding of £10m per medal. As is often the case with Budget statements, the devil is in the detail. Of the £600m pledged by the government, £100m was actually made on behalf of the private sector.

In my view, although elite sport in the UK has never been better funded than it is now, Gordon Brown's pledges seem to be less than generous and somewhat naive. Less than generous because the level of investment is but one eighth of the investment being made by China; and somewhat naive because in a cluttered market place for sponsorship, it will be a tall order to raise an additional £100m from business when there is so much competition for sponsorship from the Olympic Games organisers themselves, the BOA, national governing bodies of sport, and individual athletes. The major lesson to be learnt from China is that nations need to resource their sporting ambitions with funding that accurately reflects the scale of those ambitions.

China has distinguished itself by completing the construction of the Olympic Games facilities well in advance of the event. This compares favourably with Greece in 2004 when some facilities were only completed with weeks to spare. This means home athletes have more chance to become familiar with the venues, giving them a competitive advantage over other nations.

For example, athletes from Team China have been seen endlessly running sections of the marathon course. They know the route, the prevailing winds, and the best places to make a break for victory.

China's sailors have equally good knowledge of the waters of the sailing regatta venue at Qingdao. They represent a good bet to improve on the one silver medal won in Athens 2004. It is a rather sobering thought that in 2004 about half a second was the combined difference between five of Team GB's gold medals and second place. Anything that we can do to give our athletes the edge over their rivals must be exploited fully. This includes having the competition venues available for athletes to train in at the earliest opportunity.

China's success in the Olympic Games is attributable to female athletes who consistently outperform their male peers. In Athens in 2004, China won 32 gold medals, of which men won 12, women won 19 and one was won in a mixed event. China's women's achievements in Athens can be fully appreciated by the fact that women contested fewer events than men (124 compared with 165).

This is a very important lesson for the United Kingdom which historically has been reliant on male athletes for its sporting success. If the UK is to achieve fourth place at London 2012, this will require about 18 gold medals of which seven or eight will need to be won by women.

The UK's best performance since 1948 is the three gold medals won by women in Sydney 2000. There are however positive signs emerging from women's sport in the UK notably in cycling, rowing and sailing. Nonetheless, we have much to learn from China.

This analysis may challenge the Corinthian idea of the Olympics where winning is less important than taking part. Modern elite sport requires huge investment and incredible attention to detail as reputations and years of hard work are enhanced or destroyed in the blink of an eye. What we are witnessing in world sport can realistically be described as a "global sporting arms race" in which increasing numbers of nations are prepared to invest more and more money to achieve their goals.

This is an unedifying message for rational governments, which are more normally concerned with issues such as value for money and efficiency gains. The question governments need to ask themselves is: to what extent do we wish to be part of this game?


Professor Simon Shibli is director of the Sport Industry Research Centre (SIRC) at Sheffield Hallam University. He will be speaking tomorrow at the Pennine Theatre, City Campus at 7pm