shows how this behavior was normalized enough for it not to be considered too shameful to admit
Perhaps if they trained their players with a collective mentality where the greater good justifies letting go of personal success, this would make sense.
But I’m pretty sure that’s not the case. Most Olympic athletes create a personal goal system, especially if competing in an individual discipline. Winning a gold medal has a profound meaning for them.
Helping their country to win a gold medal by giving up their personal chance to do it and winning a bronze medal instead has way less meaning.
So you’re not wrong, but it’s still pretty fucked up if you ask me.
This.
Imagine a life time of having been hammered in day and night that you need to try harder to be the best and suffering is nothing when seeking eternal glory and win over everyone and achieve your full potential and this is your only shot...
...and then, when you are almost there, here comes the party official and says "wow not so fast there."
That's the case in PRC athletic system, especially in events PRC dominate in, where the bench is deep enough to get multiple podium placements, so roster crafting like this happens to maximize country medal count.
> personal goal system, especially if competing in an individual discipline
This is really where individual vs collective sport systems/philosophies diverge. PRC state sport development programs are more about reflecting state capacity / winning medals than individual prestige (like USSR). Young kids from backwater shitholes with little other prospects gets recruited into the athletic development pipeline and unless they're thoroughly dominant, are just one of several alternatives that can guarantee medals in events PRC specializes in. These athletes generally aren't kids of upper middle class families from developing countries with resources to largely negotiate through the amateur sport system themselves who are then apportioned commiserate glory when they win. PRC sport developement is a more all empassing national / institutional effort - it's a team effort from day one that generates enough talent in certain events that's feasible to play team order shenanigans.
It's perfectly normal for different teams to have different tactics, given the same inputs. Why should the Chinese have followed the hypothetical tactic chosen by the Danes?
Then their is the need to lie about it a sure sign of moral wrong doing.
Then there is the act of subverting an individuals career and choices with ugly coercion that is only possible in the context of a society so broken that people may be disappeared, destroyed, or tortured for displeasing dear leader or his minions.
It's a many layered shit sandwich of gross that only appears bland when simple corruption doesn't have to give way to making good on threats.
It creates some interesting problems which vary between the different types of sport. Pre-games the programme is going to be set up so that all the athletes cooperate to make each other better and maximise the programme's chance of success, but the athletes are also internally motivated to minimise their opponents' chance of beating them at the games.
In my experience there's plenty of meta-game going on all the time! (Disclaimer - I'm not an Olympic athlete myself, I'm just close to the programme socially in a particular sport).