48 JPJO 4 (1) (2019) 48-54 Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/index The Indonesian National Sports Games : Expectations and Reality Amung Ma’mun, Cep Ubad Abdullah, Suherman Slamet, Rahma Kharunnisa, Sally Hanako Budiarti Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Article Info Article History : Received August 2018 Revised October2018 Accepted March 2019 Available online April 2019 Keywords : Indonesia National Sports Games (PON), Expectation, Reality, Objectives. Abstract This paper describes an empirical study about the expectation and reality of the Indo- nesian National Sports Games (PON) after the regulation about national sport system came in to force in 2005. To describe the achievement and issues associated with the objectives of PON, analyses of report documents of the 2008, 2012, and 2016 PON were carried out. In addition, interviews with athletes and officials from several con- tingents and focus group discussions with experts were also conducted. In terms of maintaining the unity and integrity of the nation, PON could be deemed to meet the expectations but some modifications should be made to the idealism, management, and sport contents to improve the development system of national sport. However, organiz- ing PON as a talent scout effort is no longer valid due to some issues associated with recruitment system, match and sport categorization system, and event time selection. Even so, PON is still needed to stimulate sport development in regional level. There should be a new policy in order for PON to achieve all of its goals.  Correspondence Address : Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Kota Bandung E-mail : amung@upi.edu ISSN 2580-071X (online) ISSN 2085-6180 (print) DOI : 10.17509/jpjo.v4i1.15049 49 Amung Ma’mun, et. al/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 4 (1) (2019) INTRODUCTION Indonesian National Sports Games (PON) is anal- ogous to the Olympic Games that has become the cul- mination of a nation’s sporting achievements in interna- tional level (Roche 2002). The objectives of PON are similar to those of the Olympic Games. They include maintaining the unity of Indonesian nation which is analogous to peace if associated with the relationships among the participating countries in the Olympic Games, recruiting new potential athletes, and improving high performance sports (Binder 2012; Chu 2015; Chappelet 2016). Since the participants of this event are athletes representing all provinces in Indonesia, the event is of national level. However, outstanding and potential athletes will usually represent Indonesia in international sport events such as SEA Games, Asian Games, and Olympic Games. Like many national events in other countries, be it of multi- or single- sport, PON is a national athlete selection process (Leopkey, Mutter, and Parent 2010; Gulbin et al. 2013). To date, Indonesia’s international elite sports have not been getting any better. In the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; for example, Indonesia only managed to win one gold medal, one silver medal, and one bronze medal. The former was in badminton, and the other two in weightlifting. Indonesian peoples by all means expect more than this because a nation’s sporting success entails its prestige (Shariati, Khabiri, and Ha- midi 2013; Park et al 2016). In local context, being a host means a pride for a city and improved budgetary allocation which in turn will have a greater positive ef- fect on the development of the city (Tsvetkova 2011). Thus, in a universal context, there should be a new poli- cy in sport development. The policy should be shifted from the development of sports to the development through sports. Sports can be a mean through which health and quality of life are developed and urban and state developments are accelerated (Burton et al. 2010; Maguire 2011; Yamamoto 2012; Ha, Lee, and Ok 2015). And political support is also necessary to estab- lish such policy (Morissette 2014; Park et al. 2016; Zhouxiang 2016). The sport development strategies may vary in vari- ous countries but tend to give up the model implement- ed in Indonesia through PON despite the fact that this model is still applicable to maintain and promote the nation’s unity (Creak 2010; Li and Hong 2015). In Eu- ropean countries; for example, single-sport event sys- tems are becoming more and more popular than multi- sport event systems, and so is in America (Durand and Bayle 2002; Koski and Lämsä 2015). This model is in accordance with that implemented in the commercial- ized sport industries (Veal, Toohey, and Frawley 2000). The sport development through schooling systems also continues to grow. England; for example, implements Physical Education, School Sport and Club Link (PESSCL) strategy with School Sport Partnership (SSP) as its core program. SSP could be said as a partnership of various sport schools, funded by government as much as £270,000 annually (Daniel Bloyce and Andy Smith 2010). However, effective sport development through schooling systems should be equipped with clear and standardized implementation guidelines (Bailey, Morley, and Dismore 2009). The present study was conducted to analyze the organization of PON in 2008, 2012, and 2016 or after the national sport system (NSS) came into force in 2005 as well as to answer the following questions: (1) Is PON still feasible to be held as a quadrennial multi- sport event to promote the national unity? (2) Is PON still feasible to be held every four years to recruit new potential athletes? (3) Should the sport development model implemented in PON be maintained or be modi- fied in order to keep up with other countries that have already advanced? (4) What kind of policy should be used as the basis of modification in order for PON to satisfy the demands of sport development system and to optimize the regional role as the key support for the national development system?. METHOD The interviewees were 80 athletes consisting of 43 male athletes and 37 female athletes of 43 different sports contested in PON XIX in 2016 and 20 officials consisting of five of each of four different sports in- cluding martial arts, measurable sports, games sports, and accuracy sports. To the athletes were posed such questions as whether they thought PON was still on the right track to fulfill its objectives, what they thought of the number of contested sports and matches, what they thought of the proliferation of the practice of transfer of athletes from one province to another, and what they thought of the refereeing practice. And to the officials http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/index DOI : 10.17509/jpjo.v4i1.15049 50 were posed questions associated with the relevance of regulation and competition system of PON to the trend of current sport industries, the relevance of national sporting achievement to the needs required to compete in international level, the relevance of regulation system of PON to the development system required to compete globally, the feasibility of continuing or giving up PON as a facilitating event to develop athletes to compete in international level. The interview questions were meant to address the gap of PON between expectations and reality. The results of interviews were triangulated with the data gathered through focus group discussions with experts who had sport education backgrounds including lecturers, sport practitioners like coaches and umpires/ referees, and students enrolled in master’s and doctoral degree in sports. In addition, report documents of the 2008, 2012, and 2016 PON from the library of National Sports Committee (KONI) of East Kalimantan, the library of Riau KONI, and the library of West Java KONI were also analyzed to find out information regarding number of contested sports and matches, average age of the ath- letes, and top ten athletes from respective provinces. In addition, the athletes’ achievements were also analyzed to see the feasibility of giving them further trainings to compete in international level. RESULT AND DISCUSSION A shift in the value of sporting achievements among PON participants Something worth noting of the PON XVII, XVIII, and XIX is that the competition cannot be said to sup- port the effort of local athlete development process. This is due to easiness for athletes to be transferred from one province to another and due to the fact that idealism does no longer matter to some promi- nent board members of national sport federations (NSF) in establishing a clean and fair competition sys- tem that is oriented to developing athletes for interna- tional competition. Transfers of athletes and even match fixing become normal and common practices. Another notable thing is that there was 17 out of 43 contested sports in the 2008 PON where the host delegated 50 athletes that were previously transferred from other provinces during 2005-2007. This paid them off. The host managed to win 28 gold and 15 silver medals in 17 sports in question. Similarly, in the 2016 PON, West Java as the host delegated 72 athletes who were origi- nally transferred from other provinces, and they man- aged to secure 43 gold medals. These practices will likely continue to happen in several PONs to come. It is not unusual to see the achievements of some participants skyrocketing in a very unreasonable time in light of the principles of high sport performance devel- opment. On one hand, some provinces struggle to win gold medals, and some other provinces, on the other hand, could easily and surprisingly top the medal table (see Table 1). Although it is not illegal to take such shortcut since it is made possible by a policy provided by the organizing committee, this condition cannot con- tinue to happen because it will disrupt the sport devel- opment system in the regional level, and in turn the na- tion’s high performance elite sport in international level such as Olympic Games, Asian Games, and SEA Games will continue to slump. Rumor has it that the transfer of athletes and match fixing by the officials of the regional contingents and the organizing committee also took place in PON XVIII in 2012 in Riau. It is then hard to imagine what would happen to the PON XX in 2020 in Papua. There should be a regulation to deal with the aforesaid issues unless it will disrupt the devel- opment of national elite sports and the spirit of national unity. Thus, a clear and measurable regulation for or- ganizing PON in the future, like what has been imple- mented in Canada and Switzerland (Leopkey, Mutter, and Parent 2010), is a must. http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/index DOI : 10.17509/jpjo.v4i1.15049 Tabel 1. Gold Medal Winner s in PON XVII, XVIII, and No Province National Sports Week (PON) Amung Ma’mun, et. al/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 4 (1) (2019) 51 Comparison between numbers of sports matched in PON and other events Seeing the number of sports matched, PON XIX in 2016 in West Java seems to just repeat what happened in PON XVII in Samarinda, East Kalimantan. The host was deemed very obsessed to dominate the games. The addition of non-Olympic sports is burdensome to the other participating provinces. Meanwhile, the host won most of gold medals in the non- Olympic sports and in matches with which the results are upon the umpire’s decision. This is a real condition that needs investigating and analyzing from different perspectives, especially to find out the involvement of some particular parties in helping the host win the competition. This is necessary to prevent such compromises between stakeholders such as KONI, NSF, PON committee, and hosts from reoccurring. The addition of sports and matches does not seem to be well-designed and is not oriented to pre- pare the athletes for the bigger events like Olympic Games, Asian Games, and SEA Games. Matches con- tested in PON are getting numerous (see Table 2), espe- cially when compared with the number of sports and matches contested at SEA Games, Asian Games, and Olympic Games, and this is only to satisfy the ego of NSF. Table 2 shows that the number of matches contest- ed at PON is very close to twice the number of matches at Olympic Games. The addition of matches in the Olympic Games and Asian Games is very reasonable because it shall pass strict verification and validation. Besides, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) or the Olympic Council of Asia (OCA) cannot facilitate the host to add matches without approval from other competing countries. Thus, the modification to PON should be necessarily made but with taking account of academic studies and with the involvement of govern- ment/bureaucracy by providing a proper and measura- ble regulation (Tinaz, Turco, and Salisbury 2014). Olympic sports and matches at PON To what Olympic sports should PON modification refer? Of course, the sports and matches contested in PON must be in line with the sports to be competed at the Olympic Games, and if necessary the standard of PON should be similar to that of the Olympic Games. This should be taken into account when modifying PON. PON should adopt the system of Olympic Games to achieve its objectives. The implementation strategy may be hierarchical, starting to adopt the system of Olympic Games, Asian Games, and then SEA Games. Like multi-sport events in other countries, the sports and matches contested in PON should be similar to those contested in the Olympic Games (Howell and Howell 1980). Otherwise, PON is no more than an event and cannot improve the nation’s sporting achieve- ment at international level. There will be a huge gap between expectations and reality. Improper PON competition systems lead to the nation’s sporting slump in international events such as Olympic Games, Asian Games, and SEA Games. The nation’s sporting achievement in SEA Games since 2001 up to 2009 have declined. This is true that Indone- sia topped the medal table of the 2011 SEA Games; however, this is actually a result of the reconstruction matches rather than of its athletes’ performance. What happened in the 2013 and 2015 SEA Games in Myan- mar and Singapore where Indonesia only managed to secure the fourth and fifth position respectively says it all. In the last four SEA Games before 2011 and the two SEA Games after 2011, both in terms of rank and the acquisition of (gold) medals, Indonesia's rank were un- der Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam and Singapore. Thus, the sport development culture in Indonesia has not been very well established. Similarly, Indonesia's rank in the Asian Games since 1998 to 2014 have continued to decline, even when compared to that of its neighboring countries in South East Asia like Thailand. It goes to show that In- donesia's best rank have not been able to bounce back http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/index DOI : 10.17509/jpjo.v4i1.15049 Tabel 2. The Compar ison between Number s of Matches in PON and Other Events No. Event Province/country, year, and number of matches 1. PON East Kalimantan 2008 755 Riau 2012 650 West Java 2016 756 2. SEA Games Indonesia 2011 554 Myanmar 2013 461 Singapore 2015 402 3. Asian Games PRC 2010 477 South Korea 2014 436 Indonesia 2018 485 4. Olympic Games PRC 2008 302 England 2012 302 Brazil 2016 306 Amung Ma’mun, et. al/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 4 (1) (2019) 52 to the level when Indonesia reached its golden days in the 70-80s. In the 2016 Olympic Games, Indonesia has noth- ing to show off, except one gold medal in Badminton, and one silver and one bronze medal in weightlifting. If not for badminton, Indonesia would have been recorded in history as a nation that has never won a gold medal. Table 3 below summarizes the comparison between sports contested in Olympic Games (OG), Asian Games (AG), SEA Games (SG), and PON. The logic behind age restriction The logical reason behind age restrictions is to ensure the recruitment of potential athletes as defined in the objectives of PON. Top-class or Olympic athletes should no longer compete in a national-level multi- sport event. In many countries, the national events, like soccer in Germany, give the priority to amateur ath- letes, so they can gain more play minutes (Güllich et al. 2016). In addition, age restrictions may prevent the ath- letes from being transferred and encourage the sport development in all provinces in Indonesia. This way, Indonesia will have many athletes. This is of course very beneficial for the national sport development. Thus, the PON modification is certainly not oriented to the reduction of sports and matches only, but to con- form to the international sport events. Moreover, age restriction should also refer to the optimum age range of athlete improvements based on the type of sport they are in. And it might be better if some particular sports such as basketball, volleyball, soccer, softball, hockey, bowling, and billiard start to be contested in a single- sport event that is oriented to sport industry and with reference to the Olympic Games in terms of age re- strictions. The logic behind participantship and development culture As an effort to harmonize the historical value of PON that has been organized for more than 65 years http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/index DOI : 10.17509/jpjo.v4i1.15049 Tabel 3. The Comparison between Sports Contested in Olympic Games, Asian Games, Sea Games, and PON No. Sports Event OG AG SG PON-17 PON-19 1. Aquatics (swimming, diving, synchronized swimming, water polo, kayaking, rowing, sailing, underwater diving, and water skiing) 2. Gymnastics (aerobics, rhythmic, and trampolining) 3. Athletics (athletics, pentathlon, and triathlon) 4. Martial arts (boxing, judo, taekwondo, wres- tling, tarung derajat, wushu, fencing, silat, and karate) 5. Games (badminton, table tennis, tennis, basketball, soccer, hockey, softball, vol- leyball, handball, baseball, bowling, golf, sepak takraw, squash, billiard, futsal, and cricket) 6. Target (fencing and shooting) 7. Motorcycle sport/horseback riding/cycling 8. Weightlifting 9. Mind sport (chess and bridge) 10. Aerosports (aeromodelling, hang gliding, paragliding, gliding, and parachuting) 11. Others (dancing, rock climbing, roller skat- ing, and drum band) Amung Ma’mun, et. al/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 4 (1) (2019) 53 with an industry-worthy competition system, the future PON should be initiated by the participant recruitment through scheduled and standardized national champion- ship systems that are running throughout the year. This way, the national rank in every sport can clearly be de- fined. Competitions become a key to a long-term sport development system in many countries, both of amateur and professional. In addition to giving play times, com- petition will also enable the youth athletes to under- stand the sport development system including the vi- sion, mission, and organizational management (Hubball and Robertson 2004). Standardized matches in every sports should be organized at least four times in a year’s calendar, or if possible, more than four times. This way, every ath- lete’s national rank can easily be identified before tak- ing part in PON. In addition, the development culture will be established on its own because athletes will compete in structured, systematic, and sustainable sys- tems throughout the year. The championships should meet the national and international standards in order to improve the quality of sport development in every re- gion. CONCLUSION The National Sports Games as a high performance sport competition in Indonesia is still necessary to keep being organized. Besides its a long-established histori- cal value, PON is also needed to promote political ide- ology in social and national life contexts and to strengthen the national unity. As an effort to recruit new young potential athletes for a long-term development and preparation for international competitions, both single and multi-sport events, PON is not relevant any- more because the number of sports and matches are too many, the athlete transfer from one province to another has become a common practice, matches are frequently played unfairly, and there is no age restriction. Thus, it is necessary to revitalize various regulations associated with PON in a systematic and measurable way. The industrialization of a long-term and economic- oriented competition system becomes important to be developed in addition to continuing to run the elite sports development system through education. In order to improve sporting achievements, PON requires a poli- cy that can manage the number of sports and matches, ensure participant recruitment through preliminary championships that run throughout the year, and give priority to single-sport events. The PON regulation should be a critical and focal point of the government's attention, so that PON can meets its objective and elim- inate the gap between the expectations and reality. REFERENCES Bailey, Richard, David Morley, and Harriet Dismore. 2009. “Talent Development in Physical Education: A National Survey of Policy and Practice in England.” Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy 14(1): 59–72. Binder, Deanna L. 2012. “Olympic Values Education: Evolution of a Pedagogy.” Educational Review 64(July 2015): 275–302. Burton, Damon et al. 2010. “The Competitive Goal Ef- fectiveness Paradox Revisited: Examining the Goal Practices of Prospective Olympic Athletes.” Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 22(1): 72–86. Chappelet, Jean-Loup. 2016. “From Olympic Admin- istration to Olympic Governance.” Sport in Society 19(6): 739–51. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ full/10.1080/17430437.2015.1108648. Chu, Marcus P. 2015. “Beyond Status and Prestige: Chinese Cities Bids for the Summer World Universi- ty Games.” Sport in Society 18(6): 704–16. http:// www.tandfonline.com/doi/ full/10.1080/17430437.2014.982545. Creak, Simon. 2010. “Sport and the Theatrics of Power in a Postcolonial State : The National Games of 1960s Laos.” 34(June): 191–210. Daniel Bloyce and Andy Smith. 2010. “Sport Policy and Development.” (January 2015): 37–41. Durand, Christophe, and Emmanuel Bayle. 2002. “Public Assistance in Spectator Sport: A Compari- son between Europe and the United States.” Europe- an Journal of Sport Science 2(2): 1–19. Gulbin, Jason P, Morag J Croser, Elissa J Morley, and Juanita R Weissensteiner. 2013. “An Integrated Framework for the Optimisation of Sport and Ath- lete Development: A Practitioner Approach.” Jour- nal of sports sciences 31(12): 1319–31. http:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23631711. Güllich, Arne, Peter Kovar, Sebastian Zart, and Ansgar Reimann. 2016. “Sport Activities Differentiating Match-Play Improvement in Elite Youth Footballers – a 2-Year Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Sports Sciences 414(March): 1–9. http:// www.tandfonline.com/doi/ full/10.1080/02640414.2016.1161206. Howell, Reet, and Maxwell L. Howell. 1980. “The Events of the Olympic Games.” The Physician and Sportsmedicine 8(4): 102–11. http:// http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/index DOI : 10.17509/jpjo.v4i1.15049 Amung Ma’mun, et. al/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 4 (1) (2019) 54 www.tandfonline.com/doi/ full/10.1080/00913847.1980.11710919. Hubball, Harry, and Scott Robertson. 2004. “Strategies for Planning an Overseas Field Trip for Young Ath- letes.” Strategies 17(4): 7–9. http:// www.tandfonline.com/doi/ abs/10.1080/08924562.2004.10591091. Koski, Pasi, and Jari Lämsä. 2015. “Finland as a Small Sports Nation : Socio-Historical Perspectives on the Development of National Sport Policy.” 6940 (November). Leopkey, B., O. Mutter, and M.M. Parent. 2010. “Barriers and Facilitators When Hosting Sporting Events: Exploring the Canadian and Swiss Sport Event Hosting Policies.” International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 2(2): 113–34. http:// www.tandfonline.com/doi/ abs/10.1080/19406940.2010.488058. Li, Liu, and Fan Hong. 2015. “The International Journal of the History of Sport The National Games and Na- tional Identity in the Republic of China,.” (May): 37–41. Maguire, Joseph a. 2011. “Development through Sport and the Sports–industrial Complex: The Case for Human Development in Sports and Exercise Scienc- es.” Sport in Society 14(7–8): 937–49. http:// www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.psz.utm.my/doi/ pdf/10.1080/17430437.2011.603550. Morissette, Jean-françois. 2014. “The Theatricality of Sport and the Issue of Ideology - 00948705.2013.858636.” (December): 37–41. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ pdf/10.1080/00948705.2013.858636. Park, Jae-woo, Seungyup Lim, Jae-woo Park, and Seungyup Lim. 2016. “A Chronological Review of the Development of Elite Sport Policy in South Ko- rea Policy in South Korea.” 599(March). Roche, Maurice. 2002. “The Olympics and Global Citi- zenship.” Citizenship Studies 6(2): 165–81. http:// scholar.google.com/scholar? hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:The+Olympics+and +’Global+Citizenship’#0. Shariati, Mahdi, Mohammad Khabiri, and Mehrzad Ha- midi. 2013. “The Relationship between the Success of Countries at the Guangzhou 2010 Summer Asian Games and Demo-Economic Factors.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 82: 369–74. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.277. Tinaz, Cem, Douglas Michele Turco, and Paul Salis- bury. 2014. “Sport Policy in Turkey.” International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 6(3): 533–45. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ abs/10.1080/19406940.2014.893247. Tsvetkova, I. V. 2011. “The Prestige of a City as Per- ceived by the Young People of Tolyatti.” Russian Education & Society 53(7): 55–64. http:// www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2753/RES1060- 9393530704. Veal, A J, Kristine Toohey, and Stephen Frawley. 2000. “Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events The Sport Participation Legacy of the Syd- ney 2000 Olympic Games and Other International Sporting Events Hosted in Australia.” (December 2014): 37–41. Yamamoto, Mayumi Ya-ya. 2012. “International Jour- nal of Sport Policy Development of the Sporting Nation : Sport as a Strategic Area of National Policy in Japan.” International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 4(July): 277–96. Zhouxiang, Lu. 2016. “Sport and Politics: The Cultural Revolution in the Chinese Sports Ministry, 1966– 1976.” The International Journal of the History of Sport 33(5): 569– 85. http://www.tandfonline.com/ doi/full/10.1080/09523367.2016.1188082. http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/index DOI : 10.17509/jpjo.v4i1.15049 Amung Ma’mun, et. al/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 4 (1) (2019)