Marathons in China have long been government-led initiatives, thriving on market forces and commercialization, yet with overall control remaining in the hands of authorities. At different stages, the standards for hosting such events have evolved.
In the early years, marathons grew unchecked, reaching a peak around 2018 and 2019. However, the pandemic, coupled with shifting socioeconomic conditions, has placed these events under intense public scrutiny. Organizers now tread cautiously, wary of potential backlash.
Marathons reflect a microcosm of society, and the recent period has seen the most aggressive regulatory crackdown yet—targeting not just technical aspects but broader social governance.
In general, marathons are now in a phase of reduction. This year’s events contrast sharply with previous styles, with numerous constraints and a clear, non-negotiable red line.
On April 13, the *Study Times*, a publication under the Central Party School (National Academy of Governance), published an article by Gao Zhidan, Director of the General Administration of Sport, titled “Coordinated Promotion of Mass and Competitive Sports.” This article outlines the direction for high-quality sports development during the “15th Five-Year Plan” period. The only mention of marathons came in a section discussing the balance between government and market forces: “Problems such as ‘golden dollar football,’ excessive commercialization of marathon events, and ‘fan circle’ chaos have disrupted the order of the sports industry.”
On April 15, the *China Sports Daily* published a commentary titled “Establish a Correct View of Event Hosting, Let Mass Events Return to Their Essence.” It criticized events that use marathons for promotional gimmicks like “running a marathon to get a housing subsidy,” labeling such practices as a distortion of the function and value of mass events, a misrepresentation of the sports spirit, and a departure from the original purpose of hosting.
On April 21, the Chinese Athletics Association released a “Notice on Further Strengthening the Regulation of Road Running Events,” which included five points. Compared to the other four, the third point—”Standardize the commercial operation of events and strictly prohibit gimmick marketing”—stands out as the most critical. It seems the notice was issued specifically to address emerging issues in this area.
**The Trend of Riding the Wave**
A city marathon serves as a grand platform. In the age of traffic and attention, everyone wants to capitalize on the event’s popularity.
Sponsors invest money, which is officially recognized. Even cases like Heilan Home, which distributed items from luggage to various supplies in a manner that contradicted the principle of “simplicity, practicality, and necessity,” can be categorized as promotional material distribution, avoiding formal restrictions.
Service industries related to marathons—especially accommodation—often see prices skyrocket before events, leading to public complaints. This has become a recurring issue.
Sponsorship trends also reflect broader economic shifts. For instance, Vanke, once led by President Yu Liang, encouraged employee participation in marathons and even sponsored the Dapeng New Year Marathon. But as the company’s fortunes declined, it distanced itself from marathons entirely.
The real estate industry, known for aggressive marketing, lacks the funds to sponsor marathons but finds creative ways to ride the wave. Recent events have offered housing subsidies for marathon participants—a clever tactic.
Previously, some events awarded prizes that included housing vouchers. Last year, the Wuxi Marathon launched a high-profile housing discount campaign, offering participants up to 80,000 yuan in discounts, organized by the city’s housing bureau, sports bureau, and real estate association.
At the time, this was seen as a benefit for runners. Whether out-of-town participants actually used these subsidies remains questionable. But it likely benefited local residents looking to buy or upgrade homes.
The same action, viewed at a different time, takes on a completely different nature. What was once permissible is now scrutinized. Several events have faced investigations for similar practices. Moving forward, organizers must avoid such gimmicks. It’s clear that excessive commercialization has become a red line for marathons in China.
**Understanding the Red Line**
Without industrialization and commercialization, marathons stagnated as government-funded events struggled to generate vitality. Last year’s regulatory push, including the requirement that “cities and counties with high debt risks should not host events,” led to the cancellation of many small and medium-sized marathons.
Marathons inevitably rely on commercialization, especially as local governments face tighter budgets. In recent years, many previously government-funded events have turned to the market for funding.
Everything has its limits. Marathon commercialization is not banned, but the Chinese Athletics Association’s notice emphasizes “avoiding excessive commercialization.” The question arises: Where is the line? How do we define “excessive”?
Consider the housing subsidy case: Did it harm runners’ interests or the event’s reputation? Probably not. The issue boils down to how we define a marathon. Should it mimic the minimalist style of foreign marathons, or follow the Chinese model of integrating city tourism and offering generous perks?
From the regulatory perspective, marathons are sports events that should return to their core—competition. But if marathons become simple, they risk losing their appeal, having become accustomed to luxury.
The welfare aspect of Chinese marathons is widely accepted. But welfare requires funding, and if organizers lack resources, they must find commercial means. Balancing profit and moderation is a delicate art.
For now, organizers must treat excessive commercialization as a red line and avoid crossing it. If the Athletics Association cannot control the trend, stricter regulation may follow, causing greater harm to the industry.