Dividing population into medals won is a common method in attempting to determine Olympic success.

I’m not sure this is the best approach. Using population can be confusing if not misleading.

For example, the logic that because America has ten times the population it stands to reason they should win ten times the medals as Canada is a popular one today. If America doesn’t win 10 times the medals this is somehow taken to be a victory for Canada.

Of course, this logic can go both ways. For example, Canada has ten times the population of New Zealand. Ergo, according to this line of thinking, we should win ten times the medals of NZL. The Kiwis managed nine medals (three gold). Which means we should have won 90 medals and 30 gold when compared to NZL.

Instead, we won double the medals while New Zealand equaled Canada’s meager 3 gold medal output.

Canada is three times the size of Cuba. As such, we should have three times the medals, right? Instead, Cuba won more – albeit one less gold medal. The Netherlands and Australia are smaller nations and in the case of the former they more than doubled Canada’s gold medal production (seven to three) and the latter won roughly 2 1/2 times more medals – 44 to 18.

It’s not all bad though. Argentina’s population is roughly equal to Canada’s but they finished with six medals.

Population does indeed play a major role but understanding how it relates to athletic excellence is much too complex and well beyond the scope of this post. So many factors and variables come into to play when scouting, funding, developing, training and executing a national sports program.

Which brings me to the pop/medals calculations.

Countries with large populations like China, the United States and Russia will always under perform smaller nations because there are only a finite amount of medals to be won. Ugh, imagine how ugly the figure is when you calculate India’s 3 medals into one billion!

Conversely, smaller countries like Jamaica, Barbados and Greece will always look better. And you’ll never convince me that they are “more athletic” than the United States.

It’s true the reverse is true in terms of just looking at total medal counts. Small countries can never hope to win as many medals in net terms as the U.S., Russia or Germany. However, that doesn’t mean they can’t be competitive as Australia and South Korea have shown.

A better measurement, I would submit, is calculating athletes sent per nation into medals won. But this simplistic method too has its limitations.

For instance, Togo sent 3 athletes and managed a medal. That’s good for a .33 rating -best among the 47 of the 81 nations who won medals I sampled (see table below). Does this mean they’re the “most athletic” nation? They certainly were efficient but I wouldn’t be so quick to crown them kings of sport.

Nonetheless, delegations are, I would think, a function or subset of a population. Yes, when you have a larger population you get to send more athletes but assuming delegations are efficient it should be a fair indication of success.

Stretching Rationales

Too often whenever I read about this sort of stuff it’s less to make a valid point about athletics and more an attempt to begrudge the United States.

A favorite of such detractors is to note, rather tenuously, that the U.S. gets the bulk of its medals in swimming. They certainly do win a lot of medals in the pool. In 2008, 31 in total in fact.

Yet, all told they won medals in 21 different sports.

Downplaying the American success by this logic is sour grapes to me.

No one seems to mind that the Aussie’s won 20 medals out of the 44 (45%) in swimming. By contrast, America’s swimming totals represent 28% of their overall totals.

It’s a shame to read some “sports” writers in major newspapers cynically attempt to reduce the accomplishments of, for instance, Michael Phelps as one writer (who shall remain nameless) predictably did when he described Phelps’ medals as “McMedals.” Such is the rhetoric of some “McWriters.”

In yet another case, in terms of rationalizing Canada’s performance, according to one sports editor, “it doesn’t matter if we win medals” and that our athletes don’t need more funding. Then don’t participate if you don’t plan to take it seriously. Doing so only mocks our athletes. The fact is that many nations do take the Olympics very seriously.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

They should all know better.

Table: Keep in mind gold medals are not factored into the totals. NOC delegation can be seen as a function of population.

Togo 1/3 = .33
Panama 1/3 = .33
Ethiopia 7/22 = .32
Zimbabwe 4/13 = .31
Kenya 14/56 = .25
Armenia 6/25 = .24
Jamaica 11/56 = .20
USA 110/596 = .18
Georgia 6/35 = .17
Azerbaijan 7/39 = .18
China 100/639 = .16
Cuba 24/149 = .16
Russia 72/467 = .15
Great Britain 47/312 = .15
Mongolia 4/29 = .14
South Korea 31/267 = .12
France 40/323 = .12
Norway 10/85 = .12
Australia 46/433 = .11
Ukraine 27/254 = .11
Bahamas 2/19 = .11
Slovakia 6/57 = .11
Belarus 19/181 = .10
Kazakhstan 13/132 = .10
Uzbekistan 6/58 = .10
Germany 41/463 = .09
Italy 28/344 = .08
Denmark 7/84 = .08
Thailand 4/51 = .08
Slovenia 5/62 = .08
Romania 8/102 = .02
Japan 25/351 = .07
Spain 18/286 = .07
Netherlands 16/245 = .07
Trinidad and Tobago 2/30 = .07
Bahrain = 1/15 = .07
Switzerland 6/84 = .07
Hungary 10/171 = .06
Canada 18/332 = .05
New Zealand 9/182 = .05
Brazil 15/277 = .05
Sweden 5/97 (no gold) = .05
Croatia 5/105 = .05
Poland 10/268 = .04
Iceland 1/28 no gold = .04
Estonia 2/47 = .04
Argentina 6/137 = .04
Czech 6/134 = .04
Greece 4/159 (no gold) = .03

And so goes down another Olympics. How did your country do? Did they make you proud? Did you care? Here are some stats to ponder. What I’ve done is compile the average medal count for selected countries since 1992. Let’s see who has performed relative to their average and which ones didn’t.

United States (Gold, Silver, Bronze)

1992 - 37,34,37 1996 – 44,32,25 2000 – 40,24,33 2004 – 36,39,27 2008 – 36,38,36

Totals: 193,167,158: 518
Average for 5 Olympics: 104

The Americans were, well, the Americans. They finished on top of the medal standings and the usual misguided “but on a per capita basis” they’re not the best athletic nation will ensue. Anyone notice the rebirth of American volleyball? Above all, I think, the Americans did indeed “redeem” themselves and took basketball gold. I know much was made about their dismal showing in Athens and then at the World Championships but did anyone really doubt that the best basketball players in the world come from the USA?

Canada

1992 – 6,5,7 1996 – 3,11,8 2000 – 3,3,8 2004 – 3,6,3 2008 – 3, 9, 6

T: 18,34,32: 84
Avg: 17

All things considered, Canada did well in China. Given the general lack of support, it’s amazing they win medals at all. Canada surpassed its average but concerns remain. For a country that sends 350 athletes and has a COA delegation of over 600 these results are mediocre. Judging by how some in the media are taking the “keep things in perspective medals don’t matter” stance, expect Canada to continue to under fund its athletes relative to other nations.

Our athletes – who really deserve more support – shattered many Canadian records but clearly this was not good enough. One thing that continues to perplex is how we enter the Olympics with World Champions who seem to consistently falter on the world stage of the Games. Perdita Felicien, Jeremy Wotherspoon and Adam van Koeverden anyone?

China

1992 – 16,22,16 1996 -16,22,12 2000- 28,16,15 2004- 32,17,14 08 – 2008 51, 21, 28

T: 143, 98, 85: 326
Avg: 65

An Aussie prevented a Chinese sweep in diving. China made its point with 100 medals amidst controversy (gymnastics team) but Beijing may solidify China as an amateur sports power moving forward. Can they consistently win 90-100 medals in the future?

Russia

1996 – 26, 21, 15 2000 – 32,28,28 2004 – 27,27,38 2008 - 23, 21, 28

T: 108, 97, 109: 314

Avg:79

Russia performed below their 88 and 92 medals in the previous two Olympics. It remains to be seen if this is a permanent setback. Russia is an amateur power so it shouldn’t surprise anyone if they bounce back in London.

Australia

1992 – 7, 9,11 1996 – 9,9,23 2000 – 16,25,17 2004 – 17,16,16 2008 – 14, 15, 17

T: 63,74, 84:221

Avg: 44

Australia is the favored country to compare Canada with. And when we do the results are not encouraging. Australia is one impressive country when it comes to committing to their athletes. They are competitive in so many sports including basketball and canoe/kayaking. What’s Canada’s excuse for not reaching its potential? Australia performed in line with their average and remain a power in swimming. They expect to win 55 medals in London in 2012. Why not? They finished ahead of a power like Germany in Beijing. Speaking of which…

Germany

1992 – 33,21,28 1996 – 20, 18, 27 2000 – 13,17,26 2004 -13,16,20 2008 -16,10,15

T: 95,82,116: 293
Avg:59

If you feel your eyes have deceived you they have. It’s odd to see Germany placed in 6th spot in the standings. Traditionally, they sit in 3rd behind the USA and Russia. Since 2000, Germany’s performances have come off a tad but they did amass 16 gold which is their best total since 1996 and good enough for 5th in Beijing.

Great Britain

1992- 5,3,12 1996 – 1, 8,6 2000- 11, 10, 7 2004- 9, 9, 1 2008 19,13,15

T: 45, 43, 52, 140
Avg:28

In 1908 Britain nailed 148 medals to their flag. In 1996 they won a measly 15 medals (one gold). A nation with a proud athletics record could not have slumped any worse. That was the leimotif to relaunch and refocus its sports program. They bounced back in 2000, had a slight set back in 2004 but were superb in China. 14 of their 47 medals (30%) came from cycling.

Here are the all-time cycling medals for fun:

1992 – 8,5,16 1996 – 15,7,15 2000 – 13,14,11 2004 – 11,9,13 2008 – 7, 16,17

T: 54,51,72: 177
Avg: 35

This was France’s best Olympics in the post-war era. The French simply added to what was already a solid record since 1992. The rise of its swim team helped to add to the medal count as they won 6 medals in the water. This helped propel them above their average from the previous Olympics.

Italy

1992 – 6,5,8 1996 – 13,10,12 2000 – 13,8,13 2004 - 10,11,11 2008 -8,10,10

T: 50,44,54: 148
Avg: 30

Italy slightly under performed this time around partly due to the fact that their volleyball and water polo teams did not bring home any medals as they consistently did in the 1990s. Italy also did not fair well in gymnastics and track and field where they generally have done better in the past. For a cycling power like Italy, they did not see the results this time around. Nonetheless, they finished 9th overall.

Not many people may be aware but one sport Italy has done well in is boxing. Here are the all-time boxing medals:

USA – 48,23,38: 109
RUS – 22,23, 28: 73
CUB – 32,19,12: 63
GBR – 14,11,23: 48
ITA - 15,12,15: 44
GER – 10,14,18: 42

Japan

1992 – 3,8,11 1996 - 3,6,5 2000 - 5,8,5 2004 – 16,9,12 2008 - 9, 6, 10

T: 36,37,43: 116
Avg: 23

72% of their medals came from three sports: judo (7), wrestling (6) and swimming (5). The World Baseball Classic champions finished 4th in baseball.

South Korea
1992 - 12,5,12 1996 – 7,15,5 2000 - 8,10,10 2004 - 9,12,9 2008 - 13,10, 8

T: 49,52,44: 145
Avg: 29

Beijing was very good to South Korea as they hit an all-time high 13 gold medals. Four of those came from taekwondo – a sport they should dominate. The 2008 medal count did not match the 33 won in Seoul in 1988 but it’s the closest they’ve come. Beat Cuba for gold medal in baseball.

Ukraine

1996 – 9,2,12 2000 - 3,10,10 2004 -9,5,9 2008 – 7,5,15

T: 28, 22,46: 96
Avg: 24

Since participating under the Ukraine flag, 2008 has been their best in terms of total medals. 27 medals was good enough to get them in the top 10.

Netherlands

1992 - 2,6,7 1996 – 4,5,10 2000 - 12,9,4 2004 – 4,9,9 2008 – 7, 5,4

T: 29,34,34: 97
Avg:19

The Dutch results are pretty much in line with their average. Let’s call them a model of consistency.

Cuba

1992 - 14,6,11 1996 – 9,8,8 2000 – 11,11,7 2004 – 9,7,11 2008 - 2, 11, 11

T: 45,43,48: 136
Avg: 27

No gold in boxing (four silver, four bronze) or baseball for Cuba.

Spain

1992 -13,7,2 1996 5,6,6 2000 3,3,5 2004 - 3,11,5 2008 – 5,10,3

T: 29,37,21: 87
Avg: 17

18 medals falls in line with the median since 1992. Spain is having a great sports year and there was a spill over affect no doubt. Until 1992, Spain’s Olympic record was essentially pitiful. In Barcelona they won 22 medals in front of the natives and they’ve remained in that area since then. Rafael Nadal became the world’s number one ranked tennis player knocking off Roger Federer who held that spot for over four years. Clearly, Spain has arrived on the sports scene.

Romania

1992 – 4,6,8 1996 -4,7,9 2000 – 11,6,9 2004 8,5,6 2008 -4, 1, 3

T: 31,25,35, 91
Avg:18

Coming into Beijing Romania averaged 21 medals. However, this number dropped to 18 with eight medals in 2008. Historically very strong in gymnastics and rowing, the Romanians could only muster four in each (two gold) this time around.

Sweden

1992 – 1,7,4 1996 - 2,4,2 2000 - 4,5,3 2004 – 4,2,1 2008 -0,4, 1

T: 11,22,11: 44
Avg: 9

Looking for Sweden? Keep scrolling down. What happened to Sweden’s amateur program? There are reports that the welfare state is under strain and it looks like sports has been affected. Sweden is one of the all-time great sports societies that seem to be in a down cycle at the moment. They’ve averaged just 10 medals since 1992 and 2008 came well below that mark.

To put things in perspective between 1908-1956 Sweden won 347 medals. Since 1960, 120. That’s one long slumping curve.

I want to quickly mention Belarus (4,5,10) and its 19 medals. This was their best totals ever since 1996 giving them an average of 17 – this matches Canada with a third of the population.