Summary of the Core Content
Eleven years after retiring in 2026, Liu Xiang was required by the Shanghai Sports Bureau to make a choice between “buying out his contract and leaving the system” or “returning to work as a coach,” which sparked a public controversy. Liu Xiang questioned the Sports Bureau’s handling of the situation, pointing out that while the distribution of advertising fees was done in accordance with regulations, the settlement of his benefits was delayed by 11 years. This incident revealed a significant disparity between the “systematic compensation” (in the millions, based on years of service and position) awarded to meritorious athletes and the “collective emotional value” they hold for the nation (estimated in the tens of billions). It also highlighted the breakdown of a previous understanding that allowed athletes to retain their official status as a symbol of honor. The article calls for a balance between rules and human considerations, advocating for treating heroes with respect to protect the future of the nation.
Why Did Liu Xiang React So Vehemently?
After a 11-year “absence,” Liu Xiang suddenly received an ultimatum from the Sports Bureau: either receive a substantial compensation to leave or return to coaching. He responded on Weibo, criticizing the delay in providing him with proper benefits: “Did you only think of settling my affairs after ten years? Why wasn’t the distribution of advertising fees done according to the rules?”
- The Sports Bureau claimed to have acted according to the rules, but Liu Xiang’s grievances were valid: during his peak career, the Sports Bureau took a significant portion of his commercial endorsements (according to the regulations at the time). Now, without a position or having fulfilled any duties for 11 years, he was treated as an ordinary employee—using one set of rules for favors and another for burdens. Who could tolerate such double standards?
- Even more frustrating was the delayed settlement: lawyers pointed out that timely placement for retired athletes is a basic requirement, and the delay of 11 years was unfair. Liu Xiang stated, “It’s not that I don’t want to leave; it’s that you haven’t given me the opportunity to.” This statement exposed the reality that the Sports Bureau had previously used him as a symbol of honor but now wanted to get rid of him.
The System Calculates in Terms of “Salaries,” While We Remember in Terms of “National Pride”
Why did the Sports Bureau’s approach arouse sympathy for Liu Xiang across the internet? Because the two “pricing logics” are completely different:
- The “systematic compensation” is based on cold financial figures, calculated according to the rules for public institutions, amounting to millions. This is “following the rules,” but it ignores the fact that Liu Xiang is no ordinary employee.
- The “social consensus” values him as a symbol of national pride; Liu Xiang was China’s first Olympic champion, and his 12.91-second Olympic record remains unbeaten. Economics refers to the “endowment effect,” which suggests that things we own are more valuable to us, but Liu Xiang represents a shared memory for 1.3 billion people and a historic breakthrough for Asian athletics—his value cannot be measured by a salary.
The article uses a dramatic but illustrative analogy: if before 2004, everyone was willing to contribute 100 yuan for Liu Xiang’s presence, the total would be 130 billion yuan. This doesn’t mean actual payment; it emphasizes that his emotional value is in the tens of billions, and using millions to settle the matter is a mockery of his dignity.
Why Has the Previous “ Gentleman’s Agreement” Become Ineffective?
Liu Xiang was able to retain his official status for 11 years without actually working because of a mutual understanding with the Sports Bureau:
- The Sports Bureau kept his official position, which was like having a valuable brand for organizing events, conducting charity, and promoting Shanghai; Liu Xiang, in turn, maintained a respectable status within the system. Both parties benefited.
- However, the current inspection and reform efforts require the termination of such arrangements. No one questioned the lack of placement for 11 years, but now they suddenly demand a choice between two options. This sudden, harsh approach, even if legal, lacks empathy.
In essence, the rigidity of the system has collided with the ambiguity of historical circumstances, making Liu Xiang a victim of policy changes.
How to Solve This?
Liu Xiang’s issue is not unsolvable; the key is to find a balance between rules and human considerations:
1. Offer a flexible position that doesn’t force a binary choice. Liu Xiang mentioned his lack of coaching experience and fears that being a coach would harm others’ careers; buying out his contract seems too mercenary. Instead, a role such as “Athletics Promotion Ambassador” or “Youth Training Advisor” could be created, which doesn’t require an official position and allows him to continue to make an impact in a meaningful way.
2. Settle historical debts fairly, ensuring that rights and obligations are balanced. If the Sports Bureau benefited from Liu Xiang’s commercial income after his retirement, that income should be returned (which may be considered illegal under the law). Since rules are now being enforced, past special benefits should also be dealt with accordingly.
3. Be transparent and honest. By clarifying the settlement policies, compensation standards, and historical context, the public will stop speculating. Liu Xiang’s outcry is due to feelings of injustice; an honest response from the authorities will resolve the conflict.
In the end, this matter reflects how a nation treats its heroes, which in turn influences whether future generations will be willing to fight for the country. Liu Xiang’s experience serves as a reminder: don’t let those who have brought glory to the nation feel disheartened when they retire.
Conclusion
Liu Xiang’s situation is not just his own; it reflects the entire system for accommodating meritorious athletes. The system must adhere to rules, but it must also understand human emotions. The value of heroes cannot be measured by cold numbers. Treating heroes with respect is essential for preserving the spirit of our nation.