Smaller countries tend to have some inherent advantages in these types of statistical analyses due to limitations on the number of entrants in each event. For instance, huge America is allowed to enter only one team in Olympic basketball, so the best it can do in basketball is win a single gold medal with its 340 million people.
Croatia, in contrast, with a GDP about 1% of the United States' can also do no more better in basketball than win a single gold medal.
Many individual events, such as the men's' 100 meter sprint in track limit entrants from one country to three. It's not uncommon for the guy who finishes 4th in the U.S. Olympic trials and thus misses the track team to have been considered a definite medal contender up until the moment he missed the team by a fraction of a second.
And I believe swimming events allow a maximum of two entrants per country.
That depresses the performance of big countries like America, China, and Russia vs. small countries like Norway, New Zealand, and Serbia. I'm not sure how to statistically adjust for these limitations.
(Croatia and the other Dinaric Alps countries also tend to have exceptionally tall and rugged people, so they may well be more athletic on average.)
Australia and New Zealand tend to do well in a lot of Olympic sports because they aren't as obsessed with soccer or basketball as many other countries are. Their best athletes go into a lot of different sports, whereas, say, the Dutch tend to be obsessed with finally winning the soccer World Cup after 3 times making the final game.
Ex-Communist countries sometimes tend to be less soccer crazed and tend to have a lot of Cold War infrastructure for winning at Olympic events. Hungary, for instance, was quite successful at soccer for a long time, but they only give out gold medal in soccer at the Olympics, so its Communist government tended to invest a lot of in fencing disciplines, at which Hungary had a strong tradition and there were more medals to win.
Ah, but what if American freedom causes its high population (many people want to be free) and its high GDP (freedom enables wealth creation)? Where are your beloved control variables then, Emil?
"Ah, but what if American freedom causes its high population (many people want to be free) and its high GDP (freedom enables wealth creation)?"
The reason the United States' GDP is high is that the financial sector (which is often treated as a product) is included in GDP calculations. Wealth creation is only available to the repacious.
"US standard of living is objectively very very high. Personal discretionary consumption is very high relative to other rich countries."
The divide between the rich and poor in the United States has never been greater — not even close. The United States has gone from a constitutional republic to a plutocratic oligarchy in two hundred and fifty years!
The only statistical criticism I saw is that some countries try harder, and send more athletes per capita. I guess related to state sports support or programs. Australia seems to send a lot per capita. I could look into this, but it's a kinda boring topic.
Australian culture is pretty outdoorsy. Also, swimming, there's a proliferation of categories. I've once heard a complaint about swimming along the lines of imagine if the 400m sprint also had a category for 400m backwards running, 400m hopping, 400m crab walk etc etc.
In general people are quite eager to attribute our great success as Americans (I am American) to any factor such as our constitution, values, rule of law and so on rather than more prosaic factors like the great physical size of our country, our significant natural resources or our (relative to most of the world) high national IQ.
" It is also true that Americans are very into sports, but I think mostly as observers and to some degree as semi-professional participants with the weird college sports stuff."
Athletics is pure entertainment, a form of bread and circuses. It in no way advances humanity and does nothing of significance for the proles.
Surprised Georgia is so low, when I looked it up recently they were something like top 10 in both categories, but maybe it’s just differences in the data source, since the gap between something like 10th and 20th isn’t that big.
Simply a salty Dane trying to discredit their superior neighbour 🇳🇴💪💪💪
You mean our illoyal cousins who need to come back into the fold?
We were torn away from you forcefully :D A new Scandinavian Union as an alternative to the EU would be based
Smaller countries tend to have some inherent advantages in these types of statistical analyses due to limitations on the number of entrants in each event. For instance, huge America is allowed to enter only one team in Olympic basketball, so the best it can do in basketball is win a single gold medal with its 340 million people.
Croatia, in contrast, with a GDP about 1% of the United States' can also do no more better in basketball than win a single gold medal.
Many individual events, such as the men's' 100 meter sprint in track limit entrants from one country to three. It's not uncommon for the guy who finishes 4th in the U.S. Olympic trials and thus misses the track team to have been considered a definite medal contender up until the moment he missed the team by a fraction of a second.
And I believe swimming events allow a maximum of two entrants per country.
That depresses the performance of big countries like America, China, and Russia vs. small countries like Norway, New Zealand, and Serbia. I'm not sure how to statistically adjust for these limitations.
(Croatia and the other Dinaric Alps countries also tend to have exceptionally tall and rugged people, so they may well be more athletic on average.)
Australia and New Zealand tend to do well in a lot of Olympic sports because they aren't as obsessed with soccer or basketball as many other countries are. Their best athletes go into a lot of different sports, whereas, say, the Dutch tend to be obsessed with finally winning the soccer World Cup after 3 times making the final game.
Ex-Communist countries sometimes tend to be less soccer crazed and tend to have a lot of Cold War infrastructure for winning at Olympic events. Hungary, for instance, was quite successful at soccer for a long time, but they only give out gold medal in soccer at the Olympics, so its Communist government tended to invest a lot of in fencing disciplines, at which Hungary had a strong tradition and there were more medals to win.
Ah, but what if American freedom causes its high population (many people want to be free) and its high GDP (freedom enables wealth creation)? Where are your beloved control variables then, Emil?
"Ah, but what if American freedom causes its high population (many people want to be free) and its high GDP (freedom enables wealth creation)?"
The reason the United States' GDP is high is that the financial sector (which is often treated as a product) is included in GDP calculations. Wealth creation is only available to the repacious.
US standard of living is objectively very very high. Personal discretionary consumption is very high relative to other rich countries.
"US standard of living is objectively very very high. Personal discretionary consumption is very high relative to other rich countries."
The divide between the rich and poor in the United States has never been greater — not even close. The United States has gone from a constitutional republic to a plutocratic oligarchy in two hundred and fifty years!
More evidence that Emil chose the wrong control variables!
In 2024, the finance/insurance sector contributed 21.2% to GDP — the single largest contributor. With the government coming in third at 11.3
Basically, Australia and NZ win all things taken into account 😆😆
The only statistical criticism I saw is that some countries try harder, and send more athletes per capita. I guess related to state sports support or programs. Australia seems to send a lot per capita. I could look into this, but it's a kinda boring topic.
Australian culture is pretty outdoorsy. Also, swimming, there's a proliferation of categories. I've once heard a complaint about swimming along the lines of imagine if the 400m sprint also had a category for 400m backwards running, 400m hopping, 400m crab walk etc etc.
Australia is definitely effort maxxing, but also doing so quite efficiently
For a great piece about Alysa Liu, check out our work:
https://fgpsports.substack.com/p/redefining-success-alysa-lius-journey?r=7naprt
In general people are quite eager to attribute our great success as Americans (I am American) to any factor such as our constitution, values, rule of law and so on rather than more prosaic factors like the great physical size of our country, our significant natural resources or our (relative to most of the world) high national IQ.
Great analysis, Emil.
" It is also true that Americans are very into sports, but I think mostly as observers and to some degree as semi-professional participants with the weird college sports stuff."
Athletics is pure entertainment, a form of bread and circuses. It in no way advances humanity and does nothing of significance for the proles.
Surprised Georgia is so low, when I looked it up recently they were something like top 10 in both categories, but maybe it’s just differences in the data source, since the gap between something like 10th and 20th isn’t that big.