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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS