The “alternate” medal table that puts Brazil in eighth place and the United States in fifteenth

“By standards, it’s still clear that what matters is population, income levels and the political system,” says David Forrest, an economist at the University of Liverpool, UK, who researches predictions for the Olympics.

Population matters, says Forrest, because the more athletes there are, the more likely a country is to produce real competitors.

“Of course, very few are born with the potential to become world-class athletes,” he says.

Let’s take a country like Luxembourg which has a population of 633,622. The small country, formed by Belgium, France and Germany, sent 12 athletes to compete in seven disciplines and did not win medals. Meanwhile, the United States, which has the third largest population in the world (328 million) after China and India, has sent 613 athletes to compete in 35 sports and won more medals than any other country.

Some countries perform better because of the size of their population.

However, the alternate ranking, which analyzes the number of medals won per million people, shows a different result.

In this scenario, the small European nation of San Marino, with a population of more than 33,000, emerges victorious, despite having won only three medals (one silver and two bronze). The United States did not even reach the top 20 and finished in the 60th place.

But population alone is not enough to ensure that a country takes the stage.

“If a country is very poor, it will not have the resources to turn its global competitiveness into real potential,” says Forrest.

“First, they must be able to participate in sports. For example, they may have a great natural swimming ability waiting to be developed, but it is useless if there are no swimming pools.”

When poor countries win, they tend to win in low-cost sports like wrestling, for example, Forest explains, while rich countries tend to do better in expensive sports like horseback riding and sailing.

When looking at per capita GDP (the sum of a country’s wealth divided by the country’s population), China and Russia (numbers two and three in the overall medal table) have outpaced the United States. Under these optional criteria, China ranks first, Russia ranks second, and Kenya ranks third.

The United States, overall, is lagging behind at number 15.

There are also cultural and political factors. Forrest argues that the countries of the former Soviet Union have an advantage due to the strong sports infrastructure created by the communist regime.

The Commonwealth of Nations (an organization of 53 countries, mostly former British colonies) was also better than expected due to its size and wealth.

Forrest says he believes this is because Britain has pioneered the development of the sport as we know it today and has capitalized on that enthusiasm to compete with them around the world.

Australia, which ranks in the top 10 overall in total medal counts, is a classic example.

In India, cricket is the national sport, but it is not played in the Olympics. India also stands out in hockey, which is played in the Olympics, but awards a maximum of two medals, one for men and one for women. On the other hand, sports practiced by one person, such as gymnastics, swimming and athletics, can produce several sports for each athlete.

“In general, investing in team sports is not a good idea,” Forrest says.

There are a myriad of factors that make predicting Olympic medals difficult, says Simon Gleave, head of sports analytics at data firm Nielsen Gracenote.

If we only used variables like population and per capita GDP, we would underestimate some of the best performing countries.

He says past performance is a better indicator of who will do well, but that’s still only a rough estimate.

I saw our new videos on Youtube? Subscribe to our channel!