AN OLYMPIC GAME

RUNNING TALLY | August 6th 2008

What would it look like if medals were measured in terms of population ...

From INTELLIGENT LIFE magazine, Summer 2008

When the Beijing Olympics finally get under way, on August 8th, the medals table will be everywhere. And it will have a distinct whiff of the cold war, with the major powers dominating--some even say that China will come top for the first time. But what would happen if the table took the population of each country into account? We asked The Economist research department to work out what it would have looked like at Athens in 2004.

The table on the left gives the top ten countries at the Athens Olympics by medals won, counting gold, silver and bronze as one each; the table on the right gives the top ten by medals per million of population. (Medals data from the IOC; population from the UN. Figures compiled by Michael Coulman.)

Of the actual top ten, only Australia survived, while eastern-European nations and sunny islands zoomed up the list. Anyone know the Bahamian national anthem? ~ Tim de Lisle 

Sport  

Article tools

Comments

Skewed results

August 10, 2008 - 13:34 — ProbMan (not verified)
Results are skewed towards individual disciplines (where you can compete for more than one medal) and penalize team disciplines, where you can compete for just one medal. I think Australia comes out high because of a few champ athletes engaged in many swimming distances/styles.

Australia won 14 of it's 49

August 11, 2008 - 01:51 — Visitor (not verified)
Australia won 14 of it's 49 medals in Athens in Swimming (28% of it's total haul). The US, 28 out of it's 102 medals in swimming (27% of it's total haul). Australia won medals in 14 different disciplines including team events such as gold in mens hockey, silver in mens baseball, silver in womens basketball and silver in womens softball. Australia had Ian Thorpe but as far as individual medal tallies and "champ athletes" he had to take a back seat to one, Michael Phelps.

Skewed results

August 11, 2008 - 02:55 — Visitor (not verified)
I don't think your correct with your assumptions. Australia won 18 medals in events containing more than one athlete, and 15 medals in swimming. Australia's medal tally included a Gold medal in Field Hockey, and Silver in basketball, baseball and softball. It could also be argued that overall medal tally is as much skewed to individual disciplines as the adjusted tally.

bahamas

August 12, 2008 - 03:34 — tallguy (not verified)
Yep, in Athens and Sydney the Bahamas led in medals per capita and/or per million. Go Bahamas.

Bahamas

August 14, 2008 - 11:58 — A proud Bahamian! (not verified)
The 300,000+ population of The Bahamas know the anthem, and great one it is too! Lift up your heads Bahamaland. You will be hearing it soon in China.

Population statistics

August 18, 2008 - 17:51 — Paul Thorpe (not verified)
These 'modified' tables were mainly pushed by Australians keen to show how well they do! There are many confounding factors in medals tables, that probably gall the decathletes as much as anyone. Swimming has already been mentioned - a sport that always weights the medal tables in the favour of the Aussies and Americans. Michael Phelps wins 8 golds for variations on one sport. Decathletes win one gold for 10 disciplines. Another problem is that most of the Olympic sports are expensive to be good in, or need a national support infrastructure that is present in developed or totalitarian eastern bloc nations, but are non existent in large developing nations, no matter what their population is. Brazil is a good example - it doesn't cost much to run with a football at your feet. It might be a good idea to try and publish weighted medals tables related to the percentage of GDP allocated to investment in that sport. Australia may do very well in swimming, but there are more 50 metre pools in Brisbane alone than the whole UK, not to mention the sun!

Its an ok but not great way to measure

August 19, 2008 - 07:27 — Hemet (not verified)
The Bahamas finished first in the medals per capita, based on two medals, both in sprints. While that is surely a source of pride for Bahamians, it surely strains credulity to claim that one gold and one bronze medal an olympic power makes. The Bahamas has 400,000 people, making it a virtual lock to be one of the world's top Olympic nations as long as it wins even a single medal. You have to take into account that while the US and China have more people, they still are limited to the same number of entrants per competition as any other nation. What if the USA could enter a proportionate number of athletes based on our population? Bahamas has one million times fewer people as USA, so what if the USA could just slightly even out Bahamas advantage in this rankings system by simply sending ten times as many sprinters as the Bahamas? After all, track athletes peak at different times, go through injuries, etc, so the more athletes we send, the better our chances of getting more medals. There were several track athletes who were expected to qualify for Beijing at the US track and field olympic trials, but were upset by lesser-known athletes who set personal bests that day but were not experienced in international competition. Also, What if the USA could enter 3 teams in men's and women's basketball? If they spread around the talent, the USA might sweep all medals in that sport. If we are going to be penalized in medals standings because of the mere existence of the millions of American people who don't even compete or even watch the Olympics on TV, then why not let usa counterbalance that penalty? Yes, a raw count of medals is not fair to smaller countries, this alternative method seems equally flawed.

China can't win

August 19, 2008 - 11:13 — Visitor (not verified)
Even if China won every medal, they still wouldn't get 1 medal per million population, there just aren't enough to go around.

Wow, just wanna say so many

August 19, 2008 - 15:19 — amy (not verified)
Wow, just wanna say so many good comments here.. all very valid. i agree this system is not very good, i think by gold is the most logical way.

Australia and Sport

August 21, 2008 - 13:12 — Steve (not verified)
Australia has had a huge presence in swimming and it is true that the number of public pools per head of population is probably a lot higher than in the UK or even the USA. But that is not an accurate and sufficient explanation for either Australian success in swimming nor for large aggregate medal counts across sports. Even in non-olympic sports Australia tends to have more winners and world champions than one would expect. In fact the UK spends far more public money on its elite swimming program and other sports programs than does Australia. In Australia elite sport is both the culture and the religion. Grass roots sports opportunities are widespread and once Australia was a nation of good a mature sportsmen and women. However, as the high levels of obesity in Australia reveal the majority of citizens do not do enough. On the other hand all elite athletes and world class performers are consider national idols. There are huge incentives for a sizeable motived minority to excel. And those who do so are hot-housed and given world class coaching. Brazil does this to its best football teams and players but Australia does it across many sports. It is no indication of the merit of the culture but rather of its skewed obsessions.

The Bahamas won for womens

August 21, 2008 - 19:02 — No Prob Mon (not verified)
The Bahamas won for womens 4x100 relay thus winning a team discipline. This talented group additionally silvered in Sydney and help power the Bahamas to high per capita medalling over a span of Olympics.

China could win

August 24, 2008 - 10:13 — Tim (not verified)
This logic is incorrect. China could win. The more medals a individual country wins the fewer there are for other nations. So imagine for example that China won all of the medals. Every other country would have zero and hence China would win.

Gold medal tally

August 24, 2008 - 10:31 — Najit (not verified)
Assign 3 points for Gold, 2 points for Silver and 1 point for Bronze- since you cannot equate a gold medal with a bronze medal! Then you'll get a clearer picture

Medal comparisons by nation

August 25, 2008 - 20:16 — Visitor (not verified)
The points system of 3 for a gold etc is a fair idea but does not give an in depth analysis of how each country has achieved. The medals are tokens for the top three in each event to celabrate and enjoy. What about the brilliant achievements by the thousands of other participants who achieve personal bests or attain high placings but outside the medals? The 'medals only' analysis completely ignores the achievements of a country consistently reaching semis and finals.

Who's best?

August 26, 2008 - 23:02 — Visitor (not verified)
By the way, why do you want to evaluate which nation is best?

Medal comparison by nation

August 27, 2008 - 04:53 — andrew (not verified)
The use of points (3 for gold, 2 for silver and 1 for gold) has been calculated on BestOlympicNation.com for each of the last three Olympics.

If that website did the

September 12, 2008 - 19:27 — Visitor (not verified)
If that website did the calculations for all nations and not just the 10 absolute most medal scorers, Jamaica would win with double points than the one that is now first, Australia...

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.