Why do certain countries dominate the Olympics? The answer might lie in the correlation between athletic performance and GDP. This year’s Paris Olympic Games were a case in point: the top seven medal winners — the US, China, Japan, Australia, France, the Netherlands and the UK — are all among the world’s 20 largest economies.
This can be partly attributed to demographics: A larger population provides a deeper pool of athletic talent from which to draw. The more populous and developed a country is, the more it is likely to win Olympic medals.
This can also be confirmed empirically. Weighting the total number of medals won by each country by value — three points for gold, two for silver and one for bronze — reveals that the 12 countries with the highest medal count in Paris are all advanced economies. The G7 countries, which account for 43.5 percent of global GDP, won 33.8 percent of all medals. Africa, with a 3 percent share of the world economy, captured 3.7 percent of the total. Latin America, which represents 7.3 percent of global GDP, secured just under 6 percent of the medals, with 29 percent of those going to its largest economy, Brazil.
Although the correlation between GDP and Olympic performance is strong, it is far from absolute. Consider, for example, the EU: Despite accounting for 17.5 percent of global GDP, EU member states won nearly 30 percent of the medals in Paris. This suggests that European countries’ dominance is partly due to their effective national sports policies and deeply rooted athletic traditions. Of course, Europe also benefits from the fact that many Olympic sports were invented there.
Asia, for its part, is too politically and culturally heterogeneous for its Olympic performance to be reduced to a single explanation. While Asia and Oceania are home to three major sporting powerhouses — China, Japan and Australia — the Indian subcontinent has a relatively modest Olympic record.
In fact, India is perhaps the most striking example of how GDP can be a poor predictor of Olympic excellence. Despite a population of 1.4 billion and an economy that represents 7.9 percent of global GDP in purchasing-power-parity terms, India ranked 71st among medal-winning countries in this year’s Olympics. Australia, with just 26 million people, claimed 5 percent of the medals, putting it in fourth place.
The US and China predictably led this year’s medal race, winning 12 percent and 10 percent of all medals respectively, largely thanks to their economic might and population size. That said, the US’s medal count was far lower than its economic power would suggest, given that it accounts for roughly 20 percent of global GDP.
To be sure, economic development and demographics alone are not enough to guarantee Olympic success. Unlocking a country’s athletic potential requires effective policies and adequate infrastructure, which is why sparsely populated yet highly developed countries like Australia often punch above their weight, while densely populated countries like Nigeria barely win any medals.
Athletic culture also plays a vital role. African countries, for example, excel in track and field, particularly middle and long-distance running, largely due to east Africa’s deeply rooted tradition of training at high altitudes.
Notably, distance running does not require sophisticated infrastructure or access to high-level training facilities like other Olympic sports such as swimming, fencing, and gymnastics, which remain overwhelmingly dominated by wealthy Western countries and China. For example, French swimming sensation Leon Marchand, who won four gold medals in Paris, trains in the US. Likewise, Algerian gold-medalist gymnast Kaylia Nemour trains in France.
The disparities in Olympic medal counts offer valuable, albeit nuanced, geopolitical insights. At first glance, this year’s medal count appears to reflect our increasingly multipolar world. With 92 of the 206 participating countries and territories winning medals, the Paris Olympics suggested a more open and competitive global landscape.
However, the fact that 50 percent of these medals were concentrated among G7 countries and China, which together account for 60 percent of global GDP, shows that there is still a long way to go.
While sports and the world economy are moving toward greater multipolarity, this shift might be slower and more limited than many expect.
Zaki Laidi, a professor at Sciences Po, is a former special adviser to the high representative of the EU for foreign policy and security.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS