The London Olympics are over and as expected, America came out on top. For me, it was not a particularly enjoyable fortnight as the time difference meant that I missed most of the great performances. Back home in Canada though, there has been much national angst as Canadian athletes brought home a solitary gold among 18 overall medals. Personally, I thought that was a reasonable achievement; we are not blessed with America's population so to garner 18 medals is fine, even if 12 were bronze. As James Mirtle of the Globe and Mail said, there's no shame in celebrating bronze, as long as it is not in hockey.
One of the problems with the Olympics is the unbalanced playing field. It is not really fair to compare countries against one another based purely on medals. There are so many other factors that can be used to get a better idea of which nation performed beyond their expectations.
As an example, let's compare medal totals for Canada (1-5-12) and Brazil (3-5-9). Sure, Canada gained one more medal overall, but Brazil had the better record. Even then, gold medals alone are not a proper measurement either; North Korea's 4-0-2 puts them ahead of Spain at 3-10-4 in the official rankings. And medals don't even take into account populations or economics. Most notably, Grenada's single gold coming from a population of just over 100,000 is amazing. So rather than accept the prevailing standard, I decided to combine all of these elements to get a more interesting look at the medal standings.
First, I awarded points on a 5-2-1 basis for gold, silver, and bronze. These are purely arbitrary numbers based on a gold being worth more than 2 silvers, while a silver is equivalent to two bronzes. Again, just an arbitrary choice which actually didn't affect the rankings much. As an example, Japan (7-14-17-38-80) and France (11-11-12-34-89) switched places with Japan falling from 6th to 8th and France jumping up 2 spots by virtue of their extra 4 golds (those numbers are G-S-B-Total-Points). Canada suffered one of the biggest drops, falling from 13th to 22nd, just ahead of Belarus who had one of their gold medals taken away after the winner was caught doping.
The next step was to divide this point total by the population, which I took from the always reliable Wikipedia. Multiplying this number by 1,000,000 results in a stat that I have creatively dubbed Medal Points/Million People or MPMP. To illustrate, the US had 317 points using the 5-2-1 system and with a population of about 314 million, gets 1.01 MPMP, in other words about one medal point for every million people. This puts them 40th on the list with the aforementioned Grenada taking 1st at 47.62. Canada falls down to 47th at 0.77. The top 10 by this stat (MP are medal points):
Nation MP Pop MPMP
Grenada 5 105,000 47.62
Bahamas 5 353,658 14.14
Jamaica 32 2,705,827 11.83
New Zealand 39 4,434,590 8.79
Trinidad & Tob 8 1,317,714 6.07
Hungary 53 9,962,000 5.32
Croatia 19 4,290,612 4.43
Lithuania 14 3,187,700 4.39
Slovenia 9 2,057,970 4.37
Denmark 21 5,584,758 3.76
The problem here is that less populous nations have a massive advantage as you can see above, where not a single country has a population above 10 million. So I also incorporated each nation's economy using GDP per capita, which is a reasonably accurate measure of a country's wealth. Dividing GDP per capita (in $US) by Medal Points gives a number (GDP/MP) that represents how much each Medal Point cost each resident of that country. It is obviously just a theoretical calculation, since each nation doesn't spend all of its wealth on sport, but it gives a rough idea of how much each medal "costs". Naturally, poor countries with a few medals are at the top of the ranking. Ethiopia, the poorest nation to take home a medal (GDP is just $360 per person), managed 7 medals for 20 medal points, which means each Ethiopian paid $18 for each medal point. Qatar, the richest country in the world with a GDP 273 times greater than that of Ethiopia, netted only 2 bronze medals, each costing over $49,000. Canada ended up in 54th, with each medal point costing $1,868. The top 10 and bottom 5 are below:
Nation MP GDP GDP/MP
Ethiopia 20 360 18.0
China 267 5414 20.3
Kenya 23 851 37.0
N. Korea 22 1200 54.6
Russia 204 12993 63.7
Ukraine 49 3621 73.9
Uganda 5 478 95.6
Cuba 37 5397 145.9
USA 317 48387 152.6
Jamaica 32 5402 168.8
...
Bahrain 1 23132 23132.0
Singapore 2 49271 24635.5
Hong Kong 1 34049 34049.0
Kuwait 1 47982 47982.0
Qatar 2 98329 49164.5
So how can these varied measures be combined to give an overall ranking? After much thought and experimentation with complicated mathematical formulae that involved logarithmic analysis (yeah, right) I decided to simply average the 3 rankings: medal points (MPR), medal points per million (MPPMR), and GDP/MP. Here are the top 20 and bottom 5:
Nation MPR MPPMR GDP/MPR AVG
Great Britain 4 14 13 10.3
Jamaica 20 3 10 11.0
Hungary 11 6 19 12.0
Cuba 17 12 8 12.3
Russia 3 30 5 12.7
USA 1 40 9 16.7
Kazakhstan 14 21 17 17.3
South Korea 7 28 18 17.7
Ukraine 13 39 6 19.3
Belarus 23 19 16 19.3
Germany 5 32 24 20.3
Australia 9 11 41 20.3
France 6 31 27 21.3
New Zealand 15 4 45 21.3
Georgia 38 15 15 22.7
China 2 66 2 23.3
North Korea 25 43 4 24.0
Czech Republic 21 18 35 24.7
Netherlands 12 16 47 25.0
Italy 10 38 28 25.3
...
Greece 75 68 78 73.7
Morocco 79 83 61 74.3
Kuwait 79 61 84 74.7
Hong Kong 79 72 83 78.0
Saudi Arabia 79 82 80 80.3
So Great Britain actually "won" the Olympics! Jamaica and Hungary round out the top 3, while the US falls to 6th due to their large population. Belarus remains in the top 10 despite losing that gold. Canada ended up right in the middle at 43rd out of 85 countries that won a medal, exactly where we like to be. Smarter sports fans could probably figure out a way to include all those nations that went home empty handed, but I think the final result here is pretty intriguing.Obviously, this is an arbitrary analysis with no scientific merit whatsoever. Please don't take it seriously. You can easily adjust the rankings by playing with the weightings or changing the point system. It is actually rather interesting to do so; if you would like the original data, please let me know and I will forward it to you.
In the meantime, I'm looking forward to Sochi in 2014. At least I'll be in the same time zone!
Update: No I won't be in the same time zone! I have unexpectedly moved to the USA and will be watching tape delays on NBC. Yay!
Best,
Sean
No comments:
Post a Comment