Indonesia's Asian Games golds are a success, but not the full story

There is a sharp line between securing a moment of success and building a system that lasts.

Jakarta (ANTARA) - Five gold medals helped Indonesia surpass its four-gold target at the 2026 Asian Games Aichi-Nagoya, finished with 39 medals: five gold, 11 silver, and 23 bronze.

While the achievement exceeded the tally in the previous edition, namely 36 medals, sporting success should not be judged solely by whether a target has been met.

Four years ago at the Hangzhou Asian Games, Indonesia bagged seven gold medals to finish 13th. In Aichi-Nagoya, the gold count fell to five, and the country's rank dropped to 16th, even though its total medal tally increased.

This means saying the team "exceeded expectations" is technically accurate, but equating that with an improved performance is a different story.

The four-gold target was set after losing three gold-winning events from Hangzhou: two in running target shooting and one in dragon boat. The calculation was realistic, but competitive sports cannot be reduced to mathematics.

Four years is enough time to find new gold sources, develop the next generation of athletes, analyze shifting power dynamics across Asia, and develop events that were not previously mainstays.

Indonesia actually proved this was possible. Nurisa Dian Ashrifah, for instance, brought home gold in women's individual compound archery—a brand new gold source for the country at the Asian Games. Badminton also bounced back with two golds after failing to bring home any medals during the previous edition.

To this end, targets should serve as a benchmark, not a cap on goals.

A more fundamental question arises when Asian Games results are used to evaluate sports federations.

On September 23, just five days into the Games, Youth and Sports Minister Erick Thohir stated that the government had begun assessing whether performances on the ground aligned with targets agreed upon with each sport federation.

This is a reasonable approach, given that public funds spent on sports development require accountability. Federations receiving national training camp funding cannot expect continuous budget support without clear targets.

Board members, coaches, athletes, and training programs must indeed be judged by results.

The problem is that evaluations lose fairness if they only focus on the finish line without examining how each sport got there.

Nuance is needed here, because Indonesia's path to Aichi-Nagoya was far from smooth.

Journey to Aichi-Nagoya

In early June, the Asian Games national training camp budget stood at around Rp81.04 billion (around US$4.52 million)—a sharp decline from the roughly Rp389.82 billion allocated for the previous edition.

As late as June 10, just three months before the Games opened, Erick still could not guarantee when full training camps would begin.

The government then moved to secure additional funds, stretching the initial Rp81 billion budget to Rp127 billion before injecting another Rp95 billion to bring total training camp support to Rp222 billion.

While that crucial decision deserves credit, the additional funding was only announced on August 12, just five weeks before the Asian Games. At that point, disbursement was still awaiting the budget execution document (DIPA).

Funding can be added. Time cannot be turned back. That is the detail that must not be forgotten as sports federations face evaluation.

Opportunities for overseas training camps cannot simply be replaced by a budget transfer just weeks before a competition. International test-match schedules do not wait for domestic bureaucratic processes. The same goes for training periodization, tactical adaptation, nutrition, recovery, and sports science.

Peak performance may last only a few seconds in the arena, but it takes years of preparation to get there.

Traces of these preparation constraints were evident across several sports. Athletics had to adjust its training programs due to budget cuts, swimming's centralized national training camp had yet to get underway by June, and rowing had limited opportunities for international warm-up events—though it still managed to contribute two silver medals in the Asian Games.

Cycling offers another example of how medal counts cannot always tell the whole process.

In Hangzhou, women's BMX racing delivered gold through Amellya Nur Sifa and bronze through Jasmine Azzahra Setyobudi. In Aichi-Nagoya, Jasmine held onto her bronze, while Amellya finished fifth.

Jasmine herself admitted her preparation was far from ideal, as she only resumed training in April following surgery, and suffered several crashes along the way.

While Jasmine’s situation cannot be blamed entirely on budget constraints given her injuries and individual circumstances, her case highlights a key point: final results must be evaluated alongside the journey athletes take to reach the arena.

That is why evaluations cannot simply be centered on why Indonesia lost gold from BMX. An athlete's physical condition, the quality of their preparation, and the level of support available to maintain the achievement must all be taken into account.

None of these examples, however, should free federations from their responsibilities when targets are missed.

A large budget does not always mean excellent performance. Issues surrounding athlete regeneration, athlete selection, coaching quality, organizational governance, competition strategy, and even internal conflicts must still be thoroughly examined if they indeed contributed to the outcome.

However, the same standard applies to the government. If sports federations are expected to account for their outputs, the government must also be held accountable for its inputs.

How long national training camps run, how many international competitions athletes can participate in, which programs get cut, and when funds were actually disbursed must also be part of the evaluation.

This should be done carefully, especially since now that the Ministry of Youth and Sports uses Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to determine development funding.

Erick even noted that the performances of boxing, fencing, and table tennis—three sports that funded their own Asian Games trips—could inform future government support.

The ministry wants the development system to be more targeted and measurable, establishing clear performance indicators for federations, events, and athletes.

In principle, this is a healthy direction. Public funds should not be spread thin just so everyone gets a piece; priority must be given to high-performance sports.

However, a meritocracy is only fair if the starting line is taken into account.

Sports backed by heavy funding should not be judged through the same lens as those that must find their own sponsors.

The challenge arises when sports that have yet to receive support are forced to first prove themselves on their own dime just to be considered for future funding.

When this happens, established sports with existing sponsors and elite athletes have a much easier path, while undeveloped sports struggle to catch up due to fewer opportunities to compete and limited resources.

That is why the 2026 Asian Games results should be used for reflection, not pointing fingers.

After all, the government itself recognizes that relying on short-term development systems is an issue.

Multi-year training camp funding

President Prabowo Subianto’s approval for multi-year national training camp funding marked a crucial shift toward long-term athlete development: national training camps must no longer follow the short-lived funding cycles of individual multi-sport events.

However, the multi-year funding policy cannot be applied retroactively to claim credit for the Aichi-Nagoya Asian Games.

Approval for the scheme came just months before the Games. Most of the athletes who brought home gold medals are the products of years of training—spanning multiple presidential administrations, federation leaderships, coaches, and long-term programs.

The same goes for those who fell short.

It is unfair to judge a new system before it has even had the chance to take full effect. That is why achievements in Aichi-Nagoya are better viewed as a baseline, not a final verdict.

With a tally of five gold, 11 silver, and 23 bronze medals achieved in this year's Asian Games, the government can now set clear priorities and target key areas for improvement ahead of the Los Angeles 2028 Olympics.

Following the Asian Games, the government itself stated that the Aichi-Nagoya results would serve as the basis for a "comprehensive evaluation" to prepare development strategies for upcoming multi-sport events.

The word "comprehensive" must be underlined, because what needs to be evaluated goes far beyond the medal count.

Federations must be evaluated, but the government's policy design must also be scrutinized. Coaches and athletes should be assessed on results, while the quality and timeliness of the support they receive must also be taken into account.

If sports federations are held to KPIs, the government should likewise have metrics to measure its own policy execution.

That means, for instance, national training camps must no longer hinge on budget confirmation with just months to go before a competition. Athletes projected for the Olympics must have long-term training and competition schedules, while sports science should be treated as a basic necessity, not an added luxury.

Sports federations must also have clarity on their support so that training periodization is built around performance goals, not budget availability.

Ultimately, the success of the multi-year training camp funding policy will be measured by whether athletes are finally freed from the old patterns.

Therefore, Indonesia's five gold medals from the 2026 Asian Games are worth celebrating. Athletes met and even exceeded the four-gold target despite limitations they faced in the preparations.

Passing a target, however, does not mean the job is done. There is a sharp line between securing a moment of success and building a system that lasts.

The results in Aichi-Nagoya accomplished the former; the real challenge now is to demonstrate the latter.

The real test begins when the evaluation takes place. It is not just the sports federations that must look in the mirror. The state, too, must stand before it.

Related news: Indonesia surpasses Asian Games target with 39 medals: CdM

Related news: Prabowo backs para athletes through multi-year training camp funding