Every four years, we watch the global Olympics, which are divided into summer and winter games. The Olympics date back to ancient times. The modern history of the Olympic Games dates back more than a century. With the establishment of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1894. Although we all want our countries to succeed, the results are often similar. Olympic success is not something that comes easily.
The Olympic Games have always been a symbol of power and success for nations around the world. To win as many medals as possible, most countries have increased their investment in sports and athletics. Consider this to be a cold war. According to politicians, more medals equals a more powerful country. Furthermore, a larger and more beautiful stadium indicates a more prosperous and powerful country. But is Olympic success dependent on a country’s wealth? Is there another possible explanation for this? We will investigate this issue using real data.
A Medal Is Never Just a Medal
When considering why countries strive for Olympic success, we should broaden our perspective. As I mentioned in the introduction of this article, powerful countries used the Olympics to demonstrate their dominance. This is not just a historical fact; it is also the current state of affairs. The Olympic success race between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War is the most well-known example. In an anecdote from 1980, US President Jimmy Carter called for a boycott of the Moscow Olympics in response to the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. And the United States threatened its own athletes from competing in the Olympics that year by revoking their passports.
Olympic success also demonstrates that athletes from successful countries are more capable and enjoy better living conditions. However, countries’ development levels are not the only factor influencing Olympic success. However, with the influence of the media, big powers see sports as a valuable tool for propaganda. For example, Nazi Germany used the 1936 Berlin Olympics to promote Aryan supremacy. The Nazis promoted the image of a new, strong, and united Germany while concealing the regime’s persecution of Jews and Gypsies. Later, they produced Olympia, a propaganda film about the 1936 Olympics. In short, Olympic success is important for countries, particularly the large and powerful ones. Medals hold symbolic value in terms of national branding, rivalries, and soft power.
Do the Rich Always Win?
It is widely assumed that the wealthier a country is, the more medals it wins. But is it actually that simple? I believe we can all agree that money plays an important role in a country’s success. However, it is never enough to ensure success on its own. Olympic success is determined by a number of factors, including athletes’ diets and a country’s investment in sports. Now we will look at some data to see which countries are considered successful at the Olympic Games.
The graph above shows which country won the most medals per every one million inhabitants. As you can see, there are no traditionally dominant countries among the top ten. Examples include China, the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom. Despite winning the majority of the medals at every Olympic Games. However, due to their large populations, they receive more medals overall.
There are some theories about how nations perform in the Olympics. One of the major factors is whether a country hosts the Olympics or not. This may seem insignificant, but the host country effect is real. When we look at the data from previous Olympic games, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, China, Germany, and many other countries performed significantly better than in previous games. However, no one can explain why host countries enjoy such an advantage. It is probably a complicated combination of several factors.
Analysis of the Data
I analyzed medal counts from recent Olympics, beginning in 1992, and compared them to economic indicators such as GDP per capita, Human Development Index (HDI), and urbanization rates. The goal was to determine which factors actually moved the needle. Using regression analysis, I attempted to determine whether there is a statistical relationship between a country’s economic profile and the number of medals it wins.
This graph may appear complicated, but it is actually very simple. To read the graph, the vertical axis represents a country’s HDI score (Human Development Index), while the horizontal axis represents the country’s total number of medals. To see the difference, I divided all counties into two groups: high and low income. In regression analysis, the slope of the line indicates how strong the correlation is.
There appears to be a general positive trend: as development levels rise, so does the number of medals awarded. This demonstrates that countries’ Olympic success is directly correlated with their HDI level. But there is something interesting: the slope of the blue line (low-income countries) is much steeper than the orange line (high-income countries). In other words, among low-income countries, higher HDI levels are associated with a greater number of medals won. The findings may have policy implications, indicating that focusing on human development in low-income countries could have a greater impact on their Olympic success.
More Athletes, More Olympic Success
This time, I looked at the number of athletes from each country as well as their medal totals. And both groups (low and high income) show a clear positive trend: as the number of athletes increases, so does the total number of medals won.
In layman’s terms, sending more athletes leads to winning more medals in both low- and high-income countries. The “efficiency” of athletes in winning medals appears to be higher in high-GDP countries. This is completely expected given factors such as resource availability, improved infrastructure, and specialization in high-GDP countries.
Conclusions
My model depicts Olympic success as influenced by a complex set of factors. While the sheer number of athletes a country sends to the Games is an important factor, underlying socioeconomic conditions, particularly HDI and GDP, play critical roles in enabling participation and potentially influencing its efficiency.
The moderate effect of GDP on the HDI-medal relationship demonstrates that the path to Olympic glory may differ for countries with varying levels of economic development. Lower-income countries may benefit significantly from investing in human development in terms of athletic achievement. Meanwhile, high-income countries may need to focus on improving their existing sports systems and resource allocation in order to maintain their competitive advantage.
While developing the model, I included some variables that may influence a country’s Olympic success, such as urbanization rates, GDP per capita, population, and number of athletes. However, some of them were unavailable to explain the relationship. For example, countries’ urbanization rates have no effect on their medal count. So, additional research into other potential factors such as government investment in sports infrastructure, cultural emphasis on athletics, and historical sporting success will undoubtedly provide a more complete understanding of the multifaceted determinants of Olympic success.
sources
https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2022/10/cold-war-close-facing-off-olympics/
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nazi-olympics-berlin-1936
https://www.mentalfloss.com/posts/olympic-host-country-medal-advantage
https://www.olympics.com/en/olympic-games/olympic-results
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/hdi-by-country
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/athletes-olympics-numbers-2024-paris-games/
