What Makes a Successful Olympic Nation?
The argument of this piece is based on the assumption that all other factors being equal, the larger population you have, the better chance you will create winners. After all, the US, (pop 321 million) has a total of 2681 medals, while New Zealand, (5 million) only won 100.
It is also based on the assumption that all races really do have the same physical and mental potential. (I’m unhappy I feel it necessary to even mention that.)
The reason I chose this factor is that size of population is pretty much the only one over which nobody has any control these days (unless you’re Vladimir Putin). One might expect that the larger the gene pool, the more medals, all other factors being equal.
The above graphic shows some of the more successful Olympic countries, with medal counts compared to populations (Russia/USSR is a rough estimate based on averaging the populations).
The Key data is in column 4, the predicted medal count per million inhabitants. Obviously all other factors are not equal.
It’s also obvious that none of the extreme ideologies have created anything close to winning programs. It seems that a homogenous population with a strong ethos of fitness and a specialization in national strengths is the key to a winning team. Surprise, surprise. And Hungary is the only country of the big winners without a liberal democracy. Although they were the most independent of the SSRs back in Soviet days.
Socio-Economic Factors
In looking at various economic statistics for these countries, nothing seems to match except one. Minimum wage, which is some indication of the way a country treats its poor, tends to rise as medal potential rises. (Interesting that average wage is not a factor. What happened to the middle class? Perhaps they would participate in any case.) Note that GDP, which is the other element nations have little control of, seems to be completely backwards, with the biggest economies doing the worst. Hmm.
My conclusion on the social/political element of Olympic success is that while the depth of the gene pool does affect success, there is no sense having a huge population if large numbers of them cannot access the facilities to become athletes. My conclusion on the sports element is that if you focus on your strengths you will do a whole lot better. Countries like the Nordics who maximize both are the clear winners.
Unless you are Hungarian, in which case you can kiss the statistics goodbye and do whatever it is you do. It works.
I think the bottom line as far as creating a winning team is that those countries that have athletics in general, and certain sports in specific, embedded in the national ethos will do the best. The Nordic countries with winter sports. The Hungarians with fencing. The population in general must believe that the country’s chosen sports are important.
As far as creating a healthy population by this method, I’m not so sure. I would like to think countries like Canada that encourage all sports and all types of athletics will in the end create an active, and hence healthy, population. The Nordic countries seem to counter that idea successfully.
So, if you want to create a great Olympic team, it looks like getting rich doesn’t help. Having an authoritarian political system is counterproductive. The only thing that’s going to get you success on the world podium is bringing your whole country together economically and philosophically. If everyone wants to win, they will.
Disclaimer:
These statistics were gathered from various sources, and are reliable only for general discussion. For example, Sweden has no minimum wage, but negotiates various agreements with different unions to create something that averages out near the number in the table, which is higher than the quoted average wage. So much for statistics. In China, a communist country, the whole concept of a minimum wage is meaningless.