A Study on the Regulatory Dilemmas and Solutions of the Sports Training Market under the "Double Reduction" Policy from the Perspective of Multi-center Governance Theory
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/hagrep48Keywords:
Double Reduction Policy, Sports Training Market, Multi-centric Governance, Regulatory FragmentationAbstract
The implementation of China’s "Double Reduction" policy, designed to alleviate students’ academic burdens and regulate off-campus training, has catalyzed unprecedented growth in the sports training sector. While this expansion reflects heightened demand for extracurricular physical education, it has simultaneously exposed systemic regulatory deficiencies, including inconsistent service quality, safety risks, and homogenized curricula, which undermine training efficacy and jeopardize students’ holistic development. To address these challenges, this study adopts a multi-centric governance framework to dissect the regulatory dynamics of the sports training market. Drawing on policy documents, the analysis integrates three dimensions: government oversight, industry self-regulation, and societal participation, to map the fragmented regulatory landscape. Proposed interventions include establishing cross-departmental coordination mechanisms to resolve jurisdictional overlaps, instituting industry-wide certification systems to standardize coaching qualifications, dynamically updating policies to address emerging market trends, and empowering stakeholders through enhanced self-regulation and public supervision. Ultimately, this research not only redefines pathways for sustainable market governance but also underscores the imperative of aligning sports education with the policy’s original vision: fostering well-rounded development through equitable, high-quality training ecosystems.
Downloads
References
[1] Ostrom, E. (2000). Governing the Commons. Translated by Yu Xunda and Chen Xudong. Shanghai: Shanghai Sanlian Bookstore.
[2] Ostrom, E., et al. (2000). Institutional Incentives and Sustainable Development. Translated by Chen Youhong, et al. Shanghai: Shanghai Sanlian Bookstore.
[3] Zhang Kezhong. (2009). The Path of Public Governance: A Review of Elinor Ostrom's Theory. Journal of Political Science, (06), 83-93.
[4] Wang Xinglun. (2005). Multi-Centric Governance: A New Theory of Public Management. Journal of Jiangsu Administrative Institute, (01), 96-100.
[5] Wang Zhigang. (2009). The Origin, Development, and Evolution of Multi-Centric Governance Theory. Journal of Southeast University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 11 (S2), 35-37.
[6] Kong Fanbin. (2007). Interpreting Multi-Centric Governance—From the Perspective of Recognition Politics. Journal of Nanjing University (Philosophy. Humanities. Social Sciences), (06), 31-37.
[7] Zhao Shengguo, Wang Jian, & Tai Chongxi. (2022). A Study on the Regulatory System of Youth Sports Training Market in the New Era of China—An Analytical Framework of Multi-Stakeholder Governance Under Government Leadership. Journal of Sports Science, 42 (08), 21-32.
[8] Bridge, M. W., & Toms, M. R.. (2013). The specialising or sampling debate: a retrospective analysis of adolescent sports participation in the uk. J Sports Sci, 31(1), 87-96.
[9] Liu, P. (2017). Reform of China's Market Economy Regulatory System: Development and Current Challenges. Chinese Public Administration, (11), 26-32.
[10] Huang, H. Y. (2020). Strategic Considerations for Promoting the Sports Industry as a Pillar of the National Economy. Journal of Sports Science, 40 (12), 3-16.
[11] Liu, M. Y., & Kong, N. X. (2025). How Does Flexible Governance of Grassroots Youth Sports Organizations Emerge? --A Case Study of Inner Mongolia. Journal of Beijing Sport University, 48 (02), 37-49.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of Education and Educational Research

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.









