Why do certain countries dominate the Olympics? The answer might lie in the correlation between athletic performance and GDP. This year’s Paris Olympic Games were a case in point: the top seven medal winners — the US, China, Japan, Australia, France, the Netherlands and the UK — are all among the world’s 20 largest economies.
This can be partly attributed to demographics: A larger population provides a deeper pool of athletic talent from which to draw. The more populous and developed a country is, the more it is likely to win Olympic medals.
This can also be confirmed empirically. Weighting the total number of medals won by each country by value — three points for gold, two for silver and one for bronze — reveals that the 12 countries with the highest medal count in Paris are all advanced economies. The G7 countries, which account for 43.5 percent of global GDP, won 33.8 percent of all medals. Africa, with a 3 percent share of the world economy, captured 3.7 percent of the total. Latin America, which represents 7.3 percent of global GDP, secured just under 6 percent of the medals, with 29 percent of those going to its largest economy, Brazil.
Although the correlation between GDP and Olympic performance is strong, it is far from absolute. Consider, for example, the EU: Despite accounting for 17.5 percent of global GDP, EU member states won nearly 30 percent of the medals in Paris. This suggests that European countries’ dominance is partly due to their effective national sports policies and deeply rooted athletic traditions. Of course, Europe also benefits from the fact that many Olympic sports were invented there.
Asia, for its part, is too politically and culturally heterogeneous for its Olympic performance to be reduced to a single explanation. While Asia and Oceania are home to three major sporting powerhouses — China, Japan and Australia — the Indian subcontinent has a relatively modest Olympic record.
In fact, India is perhaps the most striking example of how GDP can be a poor predictor of Olympic excellence. Despite a population of 1.4 billion and an economy that represents 7.9 percent of global GDP in purchasing-power-parity terms, India ranked 71st among medal-winning countries in this year’s Olympics. Australia, with just 26 million people, claimed 5 percent of the medals, putting it in fourth place.
The US and China predictably led this year’s medal race, winning 12 percent and 10 percent of all medals respectively, largely thanks to their economic might and population size. That said, the US’s medal count was far lower than its economic power would suggest, given that it accounts for roughly 20 percent of global GDP.
To be sure, economic development and demographics alone are not enough to guarantee Olympic success. Unlocking a country’s athletic potential requires effective policies and adequate infrastructure, which is why sparsely populated yet highly developed countries like Australia often punch above their weight, while densely populated countries like Nigeria barely win any medals.
Athletic culture also plays a vital role. African countries, for example, excel in track and field, particularly middle and long-distance running, largely due to east Africa’s deeply rooted tradition of training at high altitudes.
Notably, distance running does not require sophisticated infrastructure or access to high-level training facilities like other Olympic sports such as swimming, fencing, and gymnastics, which remain overwhelmingly dominated by wealthy Western countries and China. For example, French swimming sensation Leon Marchand, who won four gold medals in Paris, trains in the US. Likewise, Algerian gold-medalist gymnast Kaylia Nemour trains in France.
The disparities in Olympic medal counts offer valuable, albeit nuanced, geopolitical insights. At first glance, this year’s medal count appears to reflect our increasingly multipolar world. With 92 of the 206 participating countries and territories winning medals, the Paris Olympics suggested a more open and competitive global landscape.
However, the fact that 50 percent of these medals were concentrated among G7 countries and China, which together account for 60 percent of global GDP, shows that there is still a long way to go.
While sports and the world economy are moving toward greater multipolarity, this shift might be slower and more limited than many expect.
Zaki Laidi, a professor at Sciences Po, is a former special adviser to the high representative of the EU for foreign policy and security.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS