How have London 2012 and Sochi 2014 supported or changed the Olympic Movement?

The global sporting arms race has encouraged nations to adopt a more strategic elite sport policy. Consequently, in their quest for international success in a globalizing world, the elite sport systems of leading nations have become increasingly homogeneous (e.g., Bergsgard, et al., 2007; De Bosscher et al., 2008; Digel, Burk, & Fahrner, 2006; Green & Houlihan, 2005; Houlihan & Green, 2008; Oakley & Green, 2001), with only small variations (Andersen & Ronglan, 2012). However, at a deeper level of policy decisions (and implementation), the SPLISS 2.0 study observed that nations respond with different blends of strong critical success factors. The study highlights that different countries create a competitive advantages just by developing a strength in one (or a few) policy dimensions (pillars) over others. For example, Australia has the strongest level of development in scientific research (pillar 9) but scores below the average in international competition (pillar 8), while Japan has its strengths in Pillars 8 and 6 (training facilities) and Canada in coach development (pillar 7). The Netherlands had it’s relative strength in sports participation (pillar 3), talent development (pillar 4) and athletic career support (pillar 5). All these countries are relatively successful in the international arena. Another interesting key issue noted from the SPLISS project concerns the structure and organisation of elite sport policies. Clearly, those countries that have been identified as the most efficient nations given the resources at their disposal (input (funding) - output (medals) –these are Australia, Japan, the Netherlands (summer sports) and Canada, the Netherlands and Switzerland (winter sports) – also have the most integrated and coordinated approach to policy development (pillar 2).