An Olympic Odyssey of Medals and Metrics

✍️ Meredith Lu (May '24) and 👩‍💻 Tina Ge (Dec '24)

May 11, 2024

The 1952 Summer Olympic Games in Helsinki, Finland was held in a bruised world: The Cold War was underway, Germany was divided, and Chairman Mao had taken control of China. But a ray of hope emerged from the games: Team Jamaica, consisting of eight athletes, won five medals, topping the medal table by team size.

Additionally, the number of female Olympians had been slowly increasing, but did not hit the ten percent mark until 1952, or the quarter mark until 1988. While almost 5,400 women marked the highest level of female participation in 2020, the number was still below 50%.

What's more, although the price tag of $13.2 billion for Rio de Janeiro to host the 2016 Olympics resulted in protests about wasteful spending and a misallocation of resources, London actually spent almost $2 billion more as host city four years prior.

As these snapshots show, the Olympic Games are shaped not only by athletic performance but also by broader historical, economic, and social forces.

The Olympic Games are renowned as one of the world's top sporting events, featuring over 10,000 athletes from more than 200 countries competing in over 300 individual events across 28 sports every four years. With over 10 million tickets sold and a global TV audience in the billions, the Olympics are not just a sports spectacle but also a socio-cultural phenomenon.

This data research story delves behind the scenes into the broader implications of the Olympics, including their economic impact, their role in promoting gender equality, and their influence on global sports trends.

The Winners and the Alternative Winners

One of the clearest ways to understand these forces at play is by examining the medal tables—not just the traditional rankings, but also alternative ones that challenge our assumptions about what success really looks like.

Even before the first event started in Paris this summer of 2024, it was almost certain that the United States would lead the medal table at the end of the Olympics, followed by China and other sizable or prosperous nations. Over the past two decades, the United States has consistently secured top spot in the Summer Olympics, with the exception of the 2008 Beijing Games, where they were surpassed by host country, China.

But how should we define this success?

The traditional Olympics medal table is inextricably linked to factors like population size, economic strength, and previous achievements. Typically, larger and wealthier countries dominate the rankings, while smaller nations that perform exceptionally well in relation to their size receive less recognition.

The alternative medal tables below track countries' Olympic performances not only by their total medal haul but also by taking into account their gross domestic product (GDP) and population size.

Researchers have found that factors like GDP per capita, population size, and previous Olympic medal counts could account for approximately 95% of the variation in countries' final medal counts. This provides a baseline for evaluating whether a country's performance met, exceeded, or fell below expectations.

GDP, a monetary measure of the market value of all the final goods and services produced and rendered in a year by a country, is often used by a country's government to measure its economic health.

While GDP alone doesn't directly influence an athlete's performance, it serves as an indicator of factors that do. In wealthy countries, people have more financial resources to support professional athletes and more time to dedicate to leisure activities, resulting in improved sports infrastructure and more effective training opportunities.

These influences are demonstrated by the presence of wealthy nations in the top right quadrant of the graph. Countries like the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and Australia, boasting some of the world's strongest economies, naturally feature among the top 10 performers in Olympic history.

Meanwhile, clustered in the top left of the graph above are Scandinavian nations such as Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway, indicating their high GDP per capita but relatively modest performance in the Summer Games. But their Winter Games performance, not depicted in the graph, tells a different story, as these countries excel in this arena.

Norway, for instance, has garnered a total of 405 medals, including 148 gold medals, significantly more than any other nation, in Winter Olympic history. Since 1992, it has only once fallen outside the top four in the Winter Olympics medal table and has topped it in 2002, 2018, and 2022. Alongside Austria and Liechtenstein, Norway is one of just three nations to have earned more medals at the Winter Games than at the Summer Games.

The key to Norway's success extends beyond its cold climate and mountainous terrain. The country's strong emphasis on grassroots participation in winter sports from an early age is crucial. According to The Guardian, an estimated 93% of children regularly participate in winter sports in Norway, laying the groundwork for a substantial and active talent pool that progresses to elite sport training at the Olympiatoppen.

Transitioning from the early 2000s, China emerged in the lower right quadrant of the graph, indicating exceptional Olympic performance despite limited economic resources.

Successful Olympic nations typically excel in a select few disciplines, maximizing their medal count in those areas. The United States, for example, leads in overall medals for swimming, athletics, and shooting. Similarly, China's success is concentrated in specific sports, notably gymnastics, diving, and shooting, which has yielded the most medals for the country. China also boasts more gold medals in table tennis (36 golds) and badminton (20 golds) than any other nation.

China has pursued a state-driven approach to international sports competitions, focusing on enhancing athletic success through governmental policies and programs. The Olympic Glory- winning Program Guidelines 2001-2010, introduced by China's General Administration of Sports (GASC) in 2002, exemplifies this strategy. The program aimed for China to secure a top-three ranking in medal count at the 2008 Olympics, with "Project 119" specifically targeting sports where China had historically underperformed, such as swimming and rowing, according to ChinaPower Project.

China's approach is also heavily supported financially. In 2021, GASC had a budget of approximately $1 billion (RMB 6.4 billion). In contrast, Australia, known for its strong performance at the Summer Olympics, allocated only $124 million to the Australian Sports Commission for the 2020-2021 period. The United States, which does not have government- funded sports programs like many other countries, relies on private sponsorships for its athletes.

The recruitment of athletes in China is also part of this top-down system. Children as young as four years old are identified and trained through China's extensive network of over 2,000 state-run sports academies. While this approach has contributed to China's success in winning medals, it has drawn criticism internationally. Some foreign observers have raised concerns about the physical and mental toll these academies impose on young athletes. Tom Terhaar, former head coach of the U.S. Women's Rowing Team, once described Chinese athletes as "robots with all the resources they could ever ask for."

When the population is taken into consideration, neither China nor the United States emerges as the champion. Surprisingly, as seen in the graph above, that honor goes to the 🔗 Bahamas, a small Caribbean nation with a population of roughly 400,000 in 2020. In the 2020 Tokyo Games, the Bahamas secured two medals. In stark contrast, the 🔗 United States, with a population nearly 1,000 times larger than the Bahamas, clinched a staggering 113 medals, approximately 56 times as many.

The Economics of Hosting an Olympics

While performance on the podium is one metric of Olympic success, another lies in what happens off the field: the economic stakes and consequences of hosting the Games.

The opening ceremony of the Paris 2024 Olympics is taking place in less than 100 days. The calculations and evaluations of what economic influence these games would have on the world's top tourist destination, however, had started long before.

In early April, French President Emmanuel Macron inaugurated an Olympic swimming center in Saint-Denis, marking a significant departure from the past trend of extravagant and underutilized Olympics venues. These games prioritize sustainability by largely utilizing existing or temporary infrastructure and are funded significantly by the private sector. This approach could make them the most cost-effective Olympics in decades for taxpayers, according to Bloomberg.

Economists have debated whether hosting an Olympics is a blessing or a bliss. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, an increasing number of economists are suggesting that the advantages of hosting the Olympics are overstated at best and non-existent at worst, often resulting in significant debt and ongoing maintenance costs for host nations. Instead, these experts propose that Olympics committees should revamp the bidding and selection process to encourage more realistic budget projections, enhance transparency, and prioritize sustainable investments that benefit the public.

The concerns raised by opponents are not unfounded. Historical data indicates that only three Olympics in the past six decades have managed to turn a profit: the 1984 Los Angeles Games, the 1996 Atlanta Games, and the 2000 Sydney Games, as shown in green in the graph above. On the other hand, Canada is painted the darkest red due to the largest losses of $5.67 million in the 1976 Montreal Olympics. This is followed by a loss of $5.19 million in the 2012 London Games.

To understand why certain Olympics have been profitable while others have faced substantial losses, it's crucial to understand the financial dynamics of how the Games receive and allocate funds.

For much of the twentieth century, the staging of the Olympic Games was a manageable burden for host cities. The events were held in developed countries, either in Europe or the United States, and in the era before television broadcasting, hosts didn't expect to make a profit. Instead, the games were publicly funded, with these advanced countries better positioned to bear the costs due to their larger economies and more advanced infrastructure.

However, since the 1970s when television broadcasting became a major factor, financing the Games has evolved significantly. As depicted in the graph above, Olympic revenue began to increase after 1972, surpassing $1 million for the first time in 1984. Today, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) allocates funds generated from Olympic partnerships, suppliers, and licensing programs to the host country's Olympics committee. Within the host country, revenue from domestic sponsorships, ticket sales, licensing, and broadcasting also contribute to overall income.

The 1976 Montreal Olympics are often synonymous with post-Olympics economic downfall. Budgets soared, and debts related to the games skyrocketed. The main Olympics stadium, initially budgeted to cost $250 million, ended up costing $1.4 billion and took 30 years to be fully paid off, as Investopedia reported.

Some argue that Quebec's 1980 referendum for independence from Canada was a fallout from Montreal's financial troubles. The economic impact of the Montreal 1976 and Moscow 1980 Olympics led to the creation of Canada's national lottery, initially intended to help repay Olympic debts.

Los Angeles 1984 took a different approach in contrast to the ambitious construction projects and financial burdens of Montreal 1976 and Moscow 1980. It was privately funded, with strict controls on spending. Rather than building new venues with extravagant designs, organizers opted to use existing facilities, such as the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, which also served as the Olympic Stadium in 1932. Only two new venues were constructed for the 1984 Games, both with the support of corporate sponsors: the Olympic Velodrome funded by 7-Eleven and the Olympic Swim Stadium by McDonald's.

Over a decade later, the Sydney Olympics in 2000 proved to be another financial success. This highlighted the significant disparity between the success of hosting the Olympics and its economic impact. Regarded as one of the most well-organized Games, Sydney showcased exceptional infrastructure and sporting achievements.

Despite receiving global acclaim, Sydney residents questioned the long-term benefits of hosting the Olympics. Like many hosts, the New South Wales state government exceeded its budget, with total expenditure reaching about $5 billion at the start of the Games, $1 billion of which came from public funds.

After the Olympics, the Olympic Park remained largely inactive as the government struggled to redevelop it into a residential suburb. This plan did not materialize until 2005, by which time the area had become more of a tourist attraction than a thriving community.

Notably, the red flags in the graph above are mainly clustered in Europe and North America. This is because the nine cities that have hosted the Games more than once are all located in these two continents, with the exceptions of Tokyo and Beijing. It appears that, 128 years later, the trend of hosting primarily in Europe and the Americas remains largely unchanged.

But just as geography and finances shape who gets to host the Games, history and advocacy have shaped who gets to compete in them—especially when it comes to gender.

The Athletes and the Overlooked

In Paris 2024, for the first time, women athletes will make up exactly 50 percent of Olympic Games participants, according to the IOC

But equality at the Olympics, as in every other area of life, has had to be fought for and has been achieved, not only through IOC initiatives but by the efforts of women's-rights groups, women's sporting organizations, and individual women athletes.

The proportion of female athletes continued to rise to a new high of 48% at Tokyo 2020, where 5,386 women competed alongside 5,651 men. In addition to being the most gender- balanced Summer Games to date, Tokyo 2020 introduced a rule change allowing one male and one female athlete to jointly bear their flag during the opening ceremony. The IOC reported reported that this change led to 91% of countries having a female flag bearer, significantly enhancing the visibility of female athletes.

However, before applauding the advancements of women at the Games, work remains to be done to achieve complete equality for women in the Olympics arena. Recently, Nike's new design for Team USA's female track and field athletes has sparked controversy. Athletes and fans have criticized the bodysuit, which features a high-cut design on the hips, describing it as uncomfortable, revealing, and potentially sexist.

Besides women, transgender athletes also face great hurdles in qualifying for the Olympics. The IOC announced in January 2024 that to prevent unfair advantages, transgender athletes must have completed their transition before the age of 12. Prior to this new regulation, athletes who transitioned from female to male were allowed to compete without restriction from 2016.

Compared to the first modern Olympics in 1896, the Games have made significant strides in controlling financial grandiosity, enhancing female participation, and reducing carbon emissions. However, threats from climate change, AI-enhanced doping, and competition from esports persist. Despite these challenges, Thomas Bach, the IOC president, is optimistic about the future of the Olympics.

"We have never been in such a favorable position," he told AFP in an April interview. "We have never seen such a high interest in hosting the Olympic Games."