Olympics: Wealth is the name of the game

The fascinating link between Olympics and wealth is that as economies grow, their medal tallies tend to rise.

Usain Bolt comes from small Jamaica. Because of Bolt and other sprinters like Yohan Blake, or Asafa Powell as well as the women sprinters, there is a feeling that Jamaica is a superpower in sport. But actually Jamaica is only an emerging sporting nation, getting only four golds in the last Olympics for a total of 12 medals.
Justin Gatlin, who was beaten by Bolt at the recently concluded World Championships in Beijing, was absent in London 2012 but the USA won 46 golds to once again emerge top sporting country in the world. This is because Jamaica is a small economy and the US a giant.
Quite interestingly, as this article intends to show, Olympics is linked closely to the size and state of a country's economy. An analysis of the medal tally of all Olympics from 1960 (Rome) also shows up a fascinating detail: As economies grow, their medal tallies tend to rise. In other words giant or emerging economies (roughly above one trillion dollars GDP) corner the medals, apart from, of course, usually hosting the event.
Olympics actually belong to the top 10 or 15 economies, the rest are there just to say "we-too".
Why does this happen? Developed economies have systems and funds in place to nurture athletes to high levels. Smaller economies have much talent. But without the systems in place (due to laggard management, lack of funds etc) such talent perishes. But when athletes from such countries move to developed economies they suddenly becomes medal-winning athletes. For example, 24 of the 65 medal winners of the Great Britain Olympic team in 2012 were won by immigrants, mostly from Africa, while their home countries wallowed in trouble at the bottom. You need high planning, management and funds to convert an athlete with potential to a medal-winning athlete.
The best way is to look at the economy-Olympics link is countrywise. China, Japan, and the biggies. The top five economies always figure among the top seven or ten medal winners.
Japan: Small power house
Japan grew 10 per cent in the 60s, five per cent in the 70s, four per cent in the 80s. It was the second largest economy from 1978 till about 2010. Japan fluctuated a lot in medals tally, confirming the theory that economy matters a lot.
In 1964 (Tokyo) Japan got 16 golds, finishing third, This is because host nations' medal tally always shoots up, just as India's tally did during the Asian Games and Commonwealth games it hosted. Japan fell two places to fifth in 1968 with 13 golds, fifth in 1976 with nine golds and so forth. By the late 90s Japan began to slag while the economy hit roadblocks.
In 1990, Japan grew 3.20 per cent but the decadal growth was only 1.5 per cent, making it the 'Lost Decade'. So amusingly enough in 1996 in Atlanta, Japan slipped to 23rd position with just three golds.
In 2009, the economy registered negative growth of minus four per cent. In London 2012, Japan made it to 11th, showing that the economy is slowly climbing back. During the first decade of this century, Japan's famous electronics and car companies were increasingly edged out of the market by Chinese and South Korean products. That economic slowdown is why its medal tally fluctuated finishing 15th in Sydney, but then climbing back to fifth position with 16 medals. This fifth position corresponds and almost parallels its third position in world economy. It is likely to hover around the top five position now.
China: Unstoppable rise
China is now the second largest economy with the GDP at over $9 trillion. Its growing stature as a world power resulted in China hosting the Olympics in 2008 where it finished first with 51 gold medals, showing the advantage of being the host nation. In London four years later, China finished second to the USA with 38 golds.
But if you go a few decades back when China was not yet a reformed economy, its Olympic performance was dismal. In 1960, it got just one silver and its rise has been systematic and well planned and grew exactly parallel to its economy. Its gold medal haul was 16 at Atlanta (fourth place), by 2000 in Sydney it became fourth with 28 gold medals, and second in Athens with 32 golds. In Rio too, China will be first or second.
Russia: Ever on top
An amazingly sporting nation, Russia has not let any political and economic tremors to dismantle its sports ambition. In 1960 in Rome, Russia topped the tally with 43 medals, and by the beginning of the century, it was still second in 2000.
Sport is part of the Russian psyche and so it over rides economic factors. Russia is the fifth largest economy and also often third in medal tally.
Germany: Consolidating power
Russia did not lose its sportpower status despite the breakup of the vast socialist empire. Germany, on the other hand, added on East Germany, another socialist sporting power. Ideally Germany should have doubled its medal tally due to unification, but here too decline/stagnation of economy reflected in its medal tally. In 1996, united Germany won 20 medals but by 2012, it collected only 11 golds, losing almost half. Germany was hit by economic stagnation in the first decade of 2000. In 2002, it grew only 1.4 per cent.
Germany faced the same problems as Japan since it is a greying economy. Nominal GDP contracted in second and third quarters of 2008 showing signs of recession. But Germany will remain in the top seven in the next Olympics since it is now a global superpower.
Small is not big, big will remain big
Jamaica produces the best sprinters now and Kenya produces the best middle and long-distance runners. Their gold medal tally is low (Kenya two golds in London, Jamaica four golds). Medal obtained due to peculiar genetic composition of the populace can help only to a certain extent. To spread out to other sports, such countries must have the infrastructure and systems and a sense of national confidence and pride always lacking in small countries. Exception is Singapore, which has immense pride and a semi-dictatorial government but sports is not its strength. Though its economy is strong, the country is too small. It finished 72nd in London.
South Korea another economic super house is among the newly emerging Olympic nations winning 13 golds in 2012. Ideally North Korea should also win a similar number of medals, being the same people with same talents and physical qualities. In London, North Korea won only four medals, again underscoring the fact that economy matters most in sporting achievements.
The USA shines above all this. Always No 1, 2 or 3, the richest nation always has the richest haul. Its total dominance of Olympics is yet another example of big economic power always transferring to sporting achievements. Many Olympic winner of all countries practise in the US. Here African Americans have played a great role and the USA has systems in place not only to convert potential winners into actual winners but also to nurture banned or shamed athletes back into the sport, such as suspended sprinter Justin Gatlin. Remember, sprinters peak at 30 years (Gatlin is 32) and can maintain same speed till they are 32.
Olympics has always been a fight of political systems. A gold medal also announces the triumph of capitalist, market-driven economies in some cases, or communist system like in the case of China. In 1960 Rome, IOA chief Avery Brundage said: "Contestants on Olympic fields are individual athletes and not countries. Neither ideologies of different kinds nor political systems are at stake." Nothing could be further than the truth.