| |
GDP and Olympic Medals: What is the Relationship?
|
|
|
Beijing, 29 Aug 2008. At any Olympic games, the big powerful countries always seem to win. China, the US, the UK, Russia, Japan, and Germany are usually at the top of the list. Every now and then some obscure nation may win a medal or two. How were the Beijing games any different? Were GDP and winnings comparable?
Of the 958 medals that were awarded, it’s no real surprise that the top ten medal-winning countries were mostly reflective of the top ten GDPs. The only two nations missing were India (GDP #4) and Brazil (GDP #9). Population was less indicative of winnings – this can be attributed to the fact that there are many moderate sized countries (not massive) that are rich, and they can offer sports opportunities and facilities to more people per capita.
A great example is Australia: It’s only 54th in terms of population, but 6th in terms of gold medals (14 of them). Another example is India: It’s second in terms of population but not even in the top ten in medal winnings.
So if population and GDP count for something, where are the Arab countries? All those people – 300 million of them – and all that oil, should equal to quite a few medals: 47.9 medals in fact, based on population. But collectively, the Arab countries only brought home seven medals. Michael Phelps himself took home more medals than that.
Surprising, however, is certain small nations which seemed to have considerable exposure in the Olympics. Belarus weightlifters, Cuban boxers, and Azeri judo competitors put on great performances. And we can’t forget about the Jamaican sprinting – done with a panache and confidence rarely seen.
Pound for pound, Jamaica outshines every other country in Olympic medals with respect to their GDP and population.
Chen Xiulian, EconomyWatch.com
|
| |