| （苏州大学 体育学院，江苏 苏州 215001） 摘 要：依据我国运动员不同培养模式下投资主体的差异，将我国运动员分为“计划型” “融合型”和“市场型”3种类型。以计划型运动员“宁泽涛”和融合型运动员“李娜”为典型案例，分析发现“计划型”培养模式下运动员的主要投资主体是国家，其人力资本产权主要由国家具体配置；“融合型”培养模式下运动员主要投资主体是国家和市场，其人力资本产权在不同的阶段由不同的主体配置。“计划型”运动员与其投资主体之间是“隶属型”劳动关系，“融合型”运动员与国家之间是“合作性隶属型”劳动关系，与市场主体是自由的劳动关系，“计划型”和“融合型”运动员与其各自投资主体之间的权利义务也有所差异。对比两种类型运动员人力资本产权归属、人力资本盘活表现以及利益分配方式，得出“计划型”运动员人力资本产权主要归属于国家，其人力资本盘活形式和利益分配方式是由政府管理部门统一安排制定，此举也是“计划型”运动员因人力资本产权配置引发法律纠纷的导火线。“融合型”运动员与其投资主体达成相关协定之后，其大部分人力资本产权归属于自己并可以自由支配。通过分析，得出4点启示：法律可以规制运动项目管理中心权力的行使；法律可以调节市场与政府主体行为的选择；法律是明确运动员人力资本产权归属的重要途径；法律是合理配置运动员人力资本产权的重要依据。 |
WANG Xi，WANG Jia-hong
| （School of Physical Education，Soochow University，Suzhou 215001，China) Abstract: According to the differences of investment subjects under different Chinese athlete cultivation modes, the authors divided Chinese athletes into such 3 types as “plan type”, “fusion type” and “market type”. By using plan type athlete NING Ze-tao and fusion type athlete LI Na as typical cases, the authors did an analysis and revealed the following findings: under the “plan type” cultivation mode, the athletes’ main investment subject is the state, their human capital property is mainly configured by the state specifically; under the “fusion type” cultivation mode, the athletes’ main investment subjects are the state and the market, their human capital property is configured by differ-ent subjects at different stages; it is a “subordinate” labor relationship between “plan type” athletes and their in-vestment subjects, it is a “cooperative subordinate” labor relationship between “fusion type” athletes and the state, it is a free labor relationship between “fusion type” athletes and the market subjects; the rights and obligations of “plan type” and “fusion type” athletes and their respective investment subjects are somewhat different. By compar-ing the human capital property ownership, human capital vitalization performance and benefit allocation manners of the two types of athletes, the authors concluded that the human capital property of “plan type” athletes is mainly owned by the state, their human capital vitalization forms and benefit allocation manners are established under the unified arrangement of government administrative departments, such a measure is also the ignition wire that triggers legal disputes due to the configuration of the human capital property of “plan type” athletes. When a “fusion type” athlete reaches related agreements with his/her investment subject, most of his/her human capital property is owned and can be freely controlled by the athlete himself/herself. Through analyzing, the authors derived 4 inspirations: the law can regulate the exercising of rights of the sports management center; the law can adjust the choices of subject behaviors of the market and the government; the law is an important way for specifying the human capital property ownership of athletes; the law is an important basis for rationally configuring the human capital property of athletes. |
下载本期全文：点击下载