It is sad but ubiquitously true...money drives the entire production, all the way down to the grafted officials who run/ran it. I know, like all the others say below, that it is contrary to the concept what the Olympics are all overtly about, but money runs the show. For any American to watch the Olympics on TV you have to put up with commercials by companies you eventually pay for the TV time. Nothing new here. But, wistfully, I ponder, wouldn't it be nice to hear about all those other 'forgotten' athletes. Not everyone will buy into the concept but a great deal of us would. When 51 innocent people are slaughtered by a 13 year old suicide bomber in Turkey in the middle of the Olympics I would actually like to read about someone from some far off country that I could not easily find on a map who took the time to train in paltry facilities to be a part of the experience. We really need more of this stuff. There is a lot of pain in the world and it will be there tomorrow when we wake up. I think the world press needs to understand more of what makes the olympic spirit so important in place of pseudo-nationalistic praises and accolades. I love that the women show their strength, I super loved that Bolt sealed his tiny island country's image in our mind with 9 races and 9 golds. Phelps got his and I am happy but without all the other real life human 'stuff'' there would be no Olympics.
3
How can tiny countries compete with those with huge populations such as China, Russia, USA? Obviously by listing medals per capita. Don't understand why this is never done.
2
This really is refreshing.....when money does not enter into the Olympic
Spirit..
Kind of like old fashioned US bseball...right ???
Spirit..
Kind of like old fashioned US bseball...right ???
3
The Olympic games are a side show of the great game called global capitalism. Money makes more money and makes the rich earn medals. There is with it the idea that nations are great if their representatives win medals. During the Cold War, it was whether capitalism or socialism was better as evidenced by how many medals either the US or the USSR won. Today it is the game of capitalist success. After the US and European capitalists poured billions of investment dollars and Euros into China to make more money, the balance of medals very well parallels the balance of capital assets: US still number one; China, number two, is a new comer to the international elite. But, try to explain how Jamaica, Kenya and Ethiopia win so many medals in short distance and long running. How many medals have women from rich and poor Muslim countries won? I guess the issues of inequality are more complex than can be explained by money alone.
4
Some countries have show progress, like Colombia that got 1 gold in London and 3 in Rio, some go back like Venezuela, some show no progress. It's all about good management and put the money in the right place.
There is no group of athletes in the world who can out do all the other athletes in the world the way the US has without the use of preforming enhancing drugs. All those medals amount to a silent testamony of their use of drugs to win.
1
Athletes versus athletes...that's what it should be. Country medal count shouldn't be discussed or glorified. Not that I expect anything to change!
2
One of my regrets is that I was forced to watch the Olympics on NBC. Each and every participant in these games needed to be celebrated not just the Americans.
Growing up me and my friends hadn't even known that starter blocks are a thing. In a cricket mad country my first encounter with a real cricket ball was at the University. We used to make cricket balls out of the ground flame of the forest seeds.
The fact that more countries don't win medals isn't that they lack talent. Those who qualify for Olympics have done so against crippling odds. Their incredible sacrifice and grit must be applauded by all.
Growing up me and my friends hadn't even known that starter blocks are a thing. In a cricket mad country my first encounter with a real cricket ball was at the University. We used to make cricket balls out of the ground flame of the forest seeds.
The fact that more countries don't win medals isn't that they lack talent. Those who qualify for Olympics have done so against crippling odds. Their incredible sacrifice and grit must be applauded by all.
6
"One of my regrets is that I was forced to watch the Olympics on NBC."
You probably could have watched nearly everything you wanted on the CBC and BBC web sites. Obviously these have a Canadian and British slant, but their coverage is infinitely better than NBC's.
You probably could have watched nearly everything you wanted on the CBC and BBC web sites. Obviously these have a Canadian and British slant, but their coverage is infinitely better than NBC's.
2
NBC has ruined the Olympics. Their presence and "coverage" are disgusting.
No athlete who won a medal four years ago is "defending their title". Just to get back to the Olympics is a major accomplishment, but that's all lost on the "commentators" who create their own "stories", especially on the "primetime" commercial blitz. Two minutes of "coverage", 3 minutes of commercials. That's unacceptable.
If coverage is to be "provided", end the commercials. The Golf Channel did that, and I applaud them.
No athlete who won a medal four years ago is "defending their title". Just to get back to the Olympics is a major accomplishment, but that's all lost on the "commentators" who create their own "stories", especially on the "primetime" commercial blitz. Two minutes of "coverage", 3 minutes of commercials. That's unacceptable.
If coverage is to be "provided", end the commercials. The Golf Channel did that, and I applaud them.
4
All countries must work their way up, by investing, and improving differents conditions, like colombia, so far 22 on the medal table from 1 mere bronze, 20 years ago.
There's a lot of slightly patronizing talk here––about population. Isn't it also about money for training facilities and coaches and time? Wealthy countries target which sports they want to win by buying facilities and high-quality coaches. Sailing costs millions! Bringing together a soccer team isn't cheap. Money is the new dope at the Olympics.
5
Really why does this tripe make t to the paper?
Listen, the only place where everybody wins for showing up, there are no losers, and you get a juice box, where no score is kept and every one wins a trophy, it's the American suburbia, where all kids are champions, and they get a mommy line when the game is done.
The result is entitled brats who demand the world to upkeep them without having to participate. Who demand a high paying job, as long as they do not have to do any work.
This is the Olympics, not your local soccer game. If you want a sport where every one wins, go be an spectator and root for both sides. But for those who participate, they aim to win a medal, not to win a mommy line.
Listen, the only place where everybody wins for showing up, there are no losers, and you get a juice box, where no score is kept and every one wins a trophy, it's the American suburbia, where all kids are champions, and they get a mommy line when the game is done.
The result is entitled brats who demand the world to upkeep them without having to participate. Who demand a high paying job, as long as they do not have to do any work.
This is the Olympics, not your local soccer game. If you want a sport where every one wins, go be an spectator and root for both sides. But for those who participate, they aim to win a medal, not to win a mommy line.
4
There are many problems in the world, but I'm pretty sure the Olympics isn't one of them. Friendly competition is a positive thing. National pride isn't always bad. For two weeks every two years, much of the world shares a similar experience. We see that we share similar hopes, dreams and failings. That's a great thing.
1
I am way more embarassed by the state of country's politics than I am proud of our Olympic achievements. They are called the Olympic "Games" after all.
4
When my sons were young and participated in youth sports, they won participation medals and we, parents and coaches, were asked to tell the kids that everyone is a winner. Really? What a bunch of baloney. Kids better learn from a young age the difference between winning and losing so they can value true success that comes with hard work.
Apparently, the Austrian officials haven't learn that, and that is why Austrians wished they were Australia.
Apparently, the Austrian officials haven't learn that, and that is why Austrians wished they were Australia.
On a related but opposite note, if you count up the total medal count as of Sunday Aug 21, (I did not do the gold count), Russia and its former soviet republics are actually 10 medals ahead of the USA which is amazing since just about the entire Russian track and field team was barred.
Not technically but in reality the former USSR won this Olympics...
Not technically but in reality the former USSR won this Olympics...
3
Years ago Senator Bill Bradley suggested holding the olympics in the same city every 4 years (He favored Athens) and give medals to only those who break an olympic record. I like the idea. First we would do away with the obscenely high cost of staging the events. In the case of Rio it is born mostly by the city's poor who were displaced. Secondly by limiting the medals the obscene focus on the medal count would become irrelevant. Jingoism would become less a factor and sportsmanship would be the winner.
3
The Olympics are for athletic competition, and are definitely not a Kumbaya fest. Participation medals are neither needed nor desirable, larger and more affluent countries will always have more resources for athletics, and smaller countries deserve a shot to see if they can defeat the larger countries in some event. The fact that Fuji won their first medal this year is likely a source of pride and accomplishment, and the way that Jamaica has funneled their resources into sprinting to produce a world class team is a good model for other smaller countries to follow.
Competition spurs us to achieve new heights in any field. We should not try to mitigate the positive effects of competition in a misguided effort to make everybody feel good.
Competition spurs us to achieve new heights in any field. We should not try to mitigate the positive effects of competition in a misguided effort to make everybody feel good.
4
There is the Olympics, but there's also the Asian Games, Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games, and many others where competition is restricted to much fewer countries. These give smaller and poorer countries to take home medals.
The Olympic Games are a worldwide event for the best elite athletes, and that's what it should be. Remember, the worst Olympic athlete from the poorest country in the world is still better than 99.99% of the world population.
The Olympic Games are a worldwide event for the best elite athletes, and that's what it should be. Remember, the worst Olympic athlete from the poorest country in the world is still better than 99.99% of the world population.
2
So a country wins no medals -- does that make its people any less interesting, its cuisine less tasty, its geography less attractive? If a country wins a slew of medals, does it improve on any of those criteria?
The whole Olympics scam is bad enough -- impoverishing cities and countries that might otherwise be able to do more for people who need help -- without throwing nationalistic chest-thumping into the mix.
The whole Olympics scam is bad enough -- impoverishing cities and countries that might otherwise be able to do more for people who need help -- without throwing nationalistic chest-thumping into the mix.
4
I agree that one Olympic medal is better than none, but I disagree with the notion of equality in the Olympic Games. They were never meant to egalitarian.; they were meant to provide a stage of peaceful competition between nations. Despite effete talk of egalitarianism, nations go to the Olympic Games for national prestige; they did so in the past, they do so now, and they will in the future. Even if a nation comes home with only one medal, that is a source of pride for that country. The theme of this op-ed, as well as the comments, especially the comments that criticize the OG as useless, echoes an editorial that I just finished reading in the National Review that argues America is raising a generation of weak men. At one time, in the no s distance past, men were raised with some sense of masculine physicality, engaging in physical labor, yard work, school yard fisticuffs, and of course, sports. Now most adolescent men sit in front of X-boxes playing stupid video games. Conversely, women are stronger then men! Which is a good because it means they will represent the physicality of the nation, as many did for the USA in Rio over the last two weeks. Cheers!
2
First... we should eliminate the professionals. Or make a professional Tier 1 and a non-professional Tier 2 Olympics.
3
Some historical perspective:
Until the 1970s, Olympic athletes could not accept endorsements or prizes, and professionals were not allowed to compete in the Games. Athletes who practiced professionally were considered to have an unfair advantage over those who played sports as a hobby.
The International Olympic Committee eliminated the necessity of amateurism in 1971, allowing athletes to receive compensation for time away from work during training and competition. In addition, athletes were permitted to receive sponsorship from national organizations, sports organizations, and private businesses for the first time.
In 1978, the United States adopted the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, allowing athletes on the U.S. Olympic team to receive financial awards, sponsorship, and payments for the first time.
In 1986, professional athletes were given permission by the International Federation to compete in each sport of the Olympic Games. For instance, in the 1992 Olympic Games, the United States was allowed to field a basketball team comprised of well-paid NBA stars, called "The Dream Team."
This corporatism of the Olympics killed the original spirit of the games and, in my humble opinion, renders them completetly useless and should be abandoned from now on.
Until the 1970s, Olympic athletes could not accept endorsements or prizes, and professionals were not allowed to compete in the Games. Athletes who practiced professionally were considered to have an unfair advantage over those who played sports as a hobby.
The International Olympic Committee eliminated the necessity of amateurism in 1971, allowing athletes to receive compensation for time away from work during training and competition. In addition, athletes were permitted to receive sponsorship from national organizations, sports organizations, and private businesses for the first time.
In 1978, the United States adopted the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, allowing athletes on the U.S. Olympic team to receive financial awards, sponsorship, and payments for the first time.
In 1986, professional athletes were given permission by the International Federation to compete in each sport of the Olympic Games. For instance, in the 1992 Olympic Games, the United States was allowed to field a basketball team comprised of well-paid NBA stars, called "The Dream Team."
This corporatism of the Olympics killed the original spirit of the games and, in my humble opinion, renders them completetly useless and should be abandoned from now on.
9
Amateurism was never anything but a fantasy. In the early days of the Games most of the athletes were the idle rich. Then we had the Russians drafting their best hockey players into the army, where their primary, if not sole, duty was to play hockey. I much prefer the current system because it is more honest and it gives talented athletes of limited financial means greater opportunity to develop and compete. But then I think that college athletes should be paid and shouldn't be required to pursue a degree at all, but rather should be required to undertake a program that will prepare them for the possibility that they will be successful in the pros and the far greater likelihood that they won't.
2
This is a beautifully written story. It's not about explaining anything, the reasons are self-evident.
The final paragraph says it all. It's not fair; life isn't fair. And although it's pointless, it's understandable and so very human to protest.
The final paragraph says it all. It's not fair; life isn't fair. And although it's pointless, it's understandable and so very human to protest.
Thank you NYT for the fabulous graphics, charts and composite photos. Well done.
Why not have six medals instead of three?
These comments are ridiculous, as if most commenters stopped at the headline. No where is the author suggesting that this is unfair, that undeserving athletes deserve a participation trophy. When NYT filters comments, I expect there to be at least cursory attention payed to the relevance of heir content. But I digress.
The point, instead, is that while we cover the Olympics as an international affair to celebrate the best of human athletics, in practice it becomes another event through which we witness the domination of a few western countries over everyone else. And yes, Jamaica beats everyone at running, but the overall medal count is clear: in sports, as in everything else, the wealthy and powerful will still find ways to buy their way to victory. I'm not saying that the system should be changed. but this is the perspective the author is asking us to take, and I think it's a welcome alternative to the simmering jingoism of most US Olympic coverage.
The point, instead, is that while we cover the Olympics as an international affair to celebrate the best of human athletics, in practice it becomes another event through which we witness the domination of a few western countries over everyone else. And yes, Jamaica beats everyone at running, but the overall medal count is clear: in sports, as in everything else, the wealthy and powerful will still find ways to buy their way to victory. I'm not saying that the system should be changed. but this is the perspective the author is asking us to take, and I think it's a welcome alternative to the simmering jingoism of most US Olympic coverage.
4
Medals should be distributed by taking socioeconomic class, gender, and race into account. Just like college spots. It's only fair.
Winning should really be a minor element of competition.
Winning should really be a minor element of competition.
The larger nations defeat the smaller nations and the rich exploit the poor. A good idea to boycott the sorry affair.
2
My pet peeve is that in some events, NBC doesn't even bother to show most of the athletes as they finish a race. They show the medal winners crossing the finish line, then continue to focus only on them, as though the rest of the athletes in the event didn't even exist. Very disrespectful.
4
Rio is very dangerous. I am brazilian and I think that Rio is subservient to european and american tourist. I think that the Rio image do not changed. Well, this is good, the Rio need change, not image first.
1
Tell me of a perfect place and I'll respond with utopia. Not even the Garden of Eden or Heaven are perfect.
The press in certain countries mentioned in the article is profoundly disrespectful to their nation's athletes. These athletes deserve recognition for what they are doing, not scorn. They are olympic class competitors who represent their countries honorably. That's more than can be said of the nasty headline writers.
6
The Olympics are a sad joke, a symbolism of imperialism, of the oppression of poor countries by rich countries like the U.S.A.
The olympic spirit has been dead for a long time.
Don't support it by watching it on TV.
The olympic spirit has been dead for a long time.
Don't support it by watching it on TV.
12
The emphasis on competition and winning in our societies is absurd. What does that have to do with humanity?
4
The US, once again, trounces the worldwide competition. They should just give half of the medals to our teams at the outset and save some countries the embarrassment.
3
Considering the wealth, sporting infrastructure and vast population of the US the medal tally is not surprising.
What is surprising is that per capita it required 2 and 3/4 million people per medal. Compared to say, oh, New Zealand, my home, we managed to win 18 medals at 255,000 proud citizens per medal. We are proud of everyone of our athletes, medals or not. Just to compete on the world stage against the best of the best must be a memorable moment for all of our competitors, win or lose.
But to come out at the end with a medal count per capita 10 times greater than that of the US is enormously satisfying in the face of comments like yours.
What is surprising is that per capita it required 2 and 3/4 million people per medal. Compared to say, oh, New Zealand, my home, we managed to win 18 medals at 255,000 proud citizens per medal. We are proud of everyone of our athletes, medals or not. Just to compete on the world stage against the best of the best must be a memorable moment for all of our competitors, win or lose.
But to come out at the end with a medal count per capita 10 times greater than that of the US is enormously satisfying in the face of comments like yours.
5
Nothing but frustration at the way the Olympics are shown on NBC. Bad commentators, focus on a few sports with many of them nearly ignored or left out altogether, and mind numbing ads. I remember ABC's coverage fondly!
9
Here's a politically correct thought--starting with the next Olympic games why doesn't the IOC start issuing "participation medals" for those countries which don't have chance at winning a gold, silver or bronze medal but showed up for the games anyhow. Every athlete gets a medal regardless of his or her athletic ability and which should make everyone happy. That should help level the playing field considerably.
7
Your sarcasm is a bit overweening.
Although I have never had the honor of representing our nation as an Olympic athlete, I think I have a rough understanding of the pride and ongoing sense of accomplishment that being able to claim the title of "Olympic athlete" would give most athletes. I believe the vast majority of Olympic athletes from around the world take great satisfaction in being able to represent their nations in the Olympic games. Nationalism and medal-count bragging rights are always elements in competitions like the Olympics or the World Games. But ultimately, it's about individual athletes or teams demonstrating their skills, their grit, their sportsmanship.
The disappointment of losing a race by a few hundredths of a second, or giving up points in the waning seconds of a wrestling match, should fade with time for these athletes. The knowledge that they were Olympians who competed on the biggest world stage, and gave their all on behalf of their nations, will stay with them for the rest of their lives. What's a medal or a trophy anyway? In short order, even gold medals become nothing but relics of fleeting moments in a distant past.
Participation ribbons or medals are not needed for any Olympic athletes ..... nor is your snark.
Although I have never had the honor of representing our nation as an Olympic athlete, I think I have a rough understanding of the pride and ongoing sense of accomplishment that being able to claim the title of "Olympic athlete" would give most athletes. I believe the vast majority of Olympic athletes from around the world take great satisfaction in being able to represent their nations in the Olympic games. Nationalism and medal-count bragging rights are always elements in competitions like the Olympics or the World Games. But ultimately, it's about individual athletes or teams demonstrating their skills, their grit, their sportsmanship.
The disappointment of losing a race by a few hundredths of a second, or giving up points in the waning seconds of a wrestling match, should fade with time for these athletes. The knowledge that they were Olympians who competed on the biggest world stage, and gave their all on behalf of their nations, will stay with them for the rest of their lives. What's a medal or a trophy anyway? In short order, even gold medals become nothing but relics of fleeting moments in a distant past.
Participation ribbons or medals are not needed for any Olympic athletes ..... nor is your snark.
Hate to break it to you but the Olympic Charter stipulates that every athlete must receive an official "Participation Medal", designed and struck by the host country. Although not as well known as the Gold-Silver-Bronze ones, they have been a staple of Olympic collectors for years.
I think these games feature too much competition, and not enough cooperation. Is this the only way we can come together as a globe, in a peaceful fashion, on TV? Where are the theater, art, oratory, poetry competitions? What a bunch of barbarians!
3
"Where are the theater, art, oratory, poetry competitions?"
Just because NBC doesn't show something doesn't mean it isn't there. All Olympic and Paralympic Games have a cultural component. Brazil's, called Celebra, is intended to "promote Brazil's cultural diversity" and includes a wide variety of events and exhibits, many of which have been free to Brazilians since May.
Just because NBC doesn't show something doesn't mean it isn't there. All Olympic and Paralympic Games have a cultural component. Brazil's, called Celebra, is intended to "promote Brazil's cultural diversity" and includes a wide variety of events and exhibits, many of which have been free to Brazilians since May.
1
I can't even remember who won what in London in 2012. Or who even participated. The Olympics are a nationalistic affair where it's one nation versus another. I'd probably enjoy the Olympics more if all athletes played as athletes without having a nationality attached to them. Then we could root for all the athletes, without caring about what country they came from. We could start by not playing the National Anthem of the country at the winner's circle. Playing a country's national anthem seems to smack of .... that ugly word... Exceptionalism. "Our country's better than your country, nya-nya." Make all athletes wear similar outfits, with just their name and number on the uniform.
In other words, I'm suggesting the Olympics make it about the ATHLETES and not the countries.
In other words, I'm suggesting the Olympics make it about the ATHLETES and not the countries.
21
Fiji.
You have a very good idea. Unfortunately it will probably never be put into practice.
Duh! What a unique idea. Olympics for athletes...."Yo, KD want to play some ball? I'll give Steve a call and see what he's got going. What's up with Carmelo, he busy? Excuse me, may I talk with Coach K? Hi, Coach, how's your summer going?...I have a thought..."
Too wierd to conjure.
Too wierd to conjure.
What country won the most medals "per capita?"
2
Jamaica.
New Zealand ?
The play's the thing.
1
In line with the article, a shout-out of congratulations to Hidilyn Diaz of the Philippines, who won a silver in the 58kg in weightlifting! This was the first medal for the Philippines in 20 years, the first non-boxing medal since 1936 and the first medal won by a Filipina! Her success was a triumphant moment very much worth celebrating!
7
Watch BBC interview and discuss their olympians, it is glorious, win or lose, they embrace them, and respect their mistakes as greatly as their successes.
2
The countries that have the structures and money to train their athletes do well.The USA has 3,000 colleges and universities that dedicate their time and resources to promote sports, not to mention the myriads of clubs. Then there are authoritarian countries like China and Russia who spend huge amounts for the same purpose. Finally, there are countries like the Scandinavian countries where there is a tradition for sports. Those countries that have none of the above do not do well, unless you are one of those countries blessed with great runners like Kenya, Ethiopia or Jamaica.
Finally, I am against this proliferation of events you see in swimming or athletics where you get the same skills subdivided into an infinity of events and where people like Phelps and even Bolt can accumulate medals. Bolt, for example, won two medals for running the same even, 100 meters. Get rid of duplication, get rid of tennis, soccer and basketball that have hundreds of venues each year,
and I would like to have the Marathon run every Olympics in Greece to start the games. A great symbolic gesture.
Finally, I am against this proliferation of events you see in swimming or athletics where you get the same skills subdivided into an infinity of events and where people like Phelps and even Bolt can accumulate medals. Bolt, for example, won two medals for running the same even, 100 meters. Get rid of duplication, get rid of tennis, soccer and basketball that have hundreds of venues each year,
and I would like to have the Marathon run every Olympics in Greece to start the games. A great symbolic gesture.
18
The article misses two points; The US medal total as a percent of the population of the US and second, look at whether the winners, regardless of country, benefited from attendance and training at a US college or university.
4
Time to end the Olympics. It has it's shining moments - like Usain Bolt - but there are so many reasons it has become irrelevant.
The cost and ultimately the damage to the host cities. The chronically underage women's gymnastics and the horrifying truth of the way elite girls are selected for training mills.
The rampant and unending use of drugs.
The overwhelming advantage in money and headcount of the most wealthy nations. Our basketball players lived on a luxury cruise liner instead of the Olympic village - are you kidding me?
If you must why not just have a G20 or G10 games consisting of the wealthiest nations and be done with it. Scale the whole thing down by a factor of 10 or more.
Sure it's great to see Michael Phelps compete and win. But was it really a fair race where everyone had the same chance? Meh. It was certainly not a level swimming pool if money and access to elite coaches and facilities means anything.
Frankly I didn't watch the Olympics this year. Zero interest. Maybe other people share my opinion and that's why the TV ratings are way down.
The cost and ultimately the damage to the host cities. The chronically underage women's gymnastics and the horrifying truth of the way elite girls are selected for training mills.
The rampant and unending use of drugs.
The overwhelming advantage in money and headcount of the most wealthy nations. Our basketball players lived on a luxury cruise liner instead of the Olympic village - are you kidding me?
If you must why not just have a G20 or G10 games consisting of the wealthiest nations and be done with it. Scale the whole thing down by a factor of 10 or more.
Sure it's great to see Michael Phelps compete and win. But was it really a fair race where everyone had the same chance? Meh. It was certainly not a level swimming pool if money and access to elite coaches and facilities means anything.
Frankly I didn't watch the Olympics this year. Zero interest. Maybe other people share my opinion and that's why the TV ratings are way down.
11
As an American who has just moved to Paris for work I had quite a different view of the Olympics this year. If I were able to choose between being from a country where the Olympians were an embarrassment or the Politics, I would choose the Olympians being the embarrassment.
However, The USA has all of this this season, and too bad not for lack of medals. Well done USA! You make me so Proud!
Incidentally, in the news over here, people are writing about the wild fires in Southern California and the floods in Louisiana. The stuff that is real news, the news about global warming, and its implications. Which is not news in the sense of the word, but it's important, more so than a few stupid white men, also not new(s).
However, The USA has all of this this season, and too bad not for lack of medals. Well done USA! You make me so Proud!
Incidentally, in the news over here, people are writing about the wild fires in Southern California and the floods in Louisiana. The stuff that is real news, the news about global warming, and its implications. Which is not news in the sense of the word, but it's important, more so than a few stupid white men, also not new(s).
5
Medals reflect the genetic profile exploited by economy.
Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps may be genetically endowed to win one time..But three consecutive times..something strange and un natural . May be their competitors are hiding and untrained.
Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps may be genetically endowed to win one time..But three consecutive times..something strange and un natural . May be their competitors are hiding and untrained.
THIS is what you think the Olympics are all about?? You know, really??? My FAVORITE all time team of true grit athletes was the Jamaican Bobsled team. YA MON!!!!
5
It is now buy a giant Con-ympic "game" of corruption by corporations in the name of sport.
And NBC should get a gold medal in destroying the meaning and the joy of the games for those who have to endure their "coverage" on TV,
And NBC should get a gold medal in destroying the meaning and the joy of the games for those who have to endure their "coverage" on TV,
7
The comments here remind me of why I hate the olympics. A few claims about sportsmanship, but mostly just a glorification of the lack of competition and the fact that sport isn't "egalitarian," mixed with a spattering of non-reflective jingoism.
All this set against the background of a country where the water is dangerously polluted, a vast percentage of the population lives in abject poverty, Zika and other health crises threaten the entire region, etc, etc, etc.
Perhaps we should worry more about our non-egalitarian world and less about our non-egalitarian sports.
All this set against the background of a country where the water is dangerously polluted, a vast percentage of the population lives in abject poverty, Zika and other health crises threaten the entire region, etc, etc, etc.
Perhaps we should worry more about our non-egalitarian world and less about our non-egalitarian sports.
22
What this article fails to appreciate, as I understand it, is that the Olympics gives formal recognition to the top 8 athletes in the different events. The top 3 finalists earn gold, silver, and bronze medals, of course. But the games also distinguish the number 4 to 8 finalists in each event with an "Olympic Diploma." This distinction is respected by the competitors but little noted by the Press. Maybe it should be so people will have a better appreciation for the level of talented individuals who compete in the games.
10
Funny thing is that Austria is a land-locked country; first medal since 2008, and it's in sailing. Love it!
5
Landlocked yes, but oh their lakes!! Up Austria!
4
The ancient Greeks would stop their wars for the original Olumpic Games. We should follow their lead! As for the medal counts, if the competition is not that important (to some), then do not keep score. Frankly, I truly enjoyed watching the Rio Olumpics to watch the greatest sprinter of all time, the greatest swimmer of all time, and the greatest gymnast of all time!
6
Greatest "of all time?"
That's quite an accolade, you know - one that includes all of the world's distant past, as well as however many eons are yet to come before the universe disintegrates.
How about "greatest the world has seen yet?" That seems a bit more reasonable.
That's quite an accolade, you know - one that includes all of the world's distant past, as well as however many eons are yet to come before the universe disintegrates.
How about "greatest the world has seen yet?" That seems a bit more reasonable.
Everything in the world order is "ordered" by how strong each country is. Powerful countries bunch together to form UN Security Council, OECD, NATO, World Bank etc etc. So why are Olympics based on the fact that all countries are "equal"! Let's get real. All countries are NOT equal. While citizens (and sports persons) in US enjoy an highly unprecedented amount of standard of living in which they can train and bring the best out of them, folks in India and sub-Saharan Africa still toil their way to make their ends meet... so to expect poor nations to win medals is like asking them to "eat cake".
4
The Olympics held in Rio have finally woken me up to the fact that while the hype is all about "sportsmanship," the reality is all about cold hard cash. Ticket scalping, endorsement deals, advertising goals, control over the 5 rings logo - its all about how much money can be raked in. And the medals are ridiculous - the runner throwing herself across the line to get her torso over the line first, before the runners remaining upright, brought it all home to me - the fact that someone would risk serious injury to finish a race first, showed me that sportsmanship is not the goal anymore - fame and money from endorsements are the goals. Sad that something that used to mean high ideals of respect for other athletes has been tarnished to this extent. I stopped watching the Rio games after the 4 US swimmers were held up at gunpoint - a fact, not a lie - and the Olympic officials went out of their way to NOT support the athletes, but to pretend they were a problem. No - the loss of the true Olympic spirit to revenue goals is the problem. I am no longer interested in being used as a consumer by fake Olympic "spirit" to boost ad dollars, and I no longer view the Olympic logo as anything other than a trademarked brand that pretends to be about something good, but is really just about driving revenue. Not going to buy the Wheaties, not going to buy the Ralph Lauren clothes, not going to be fooled anymore that the Olympics is anything other than a cynical branding exercise.
4
Of course it's unfair. Some countries have no more people than reside in New York City. Larger countries have many more athletes from which to chose. So-called "developed" countries also have more funding to train athletes as well as to help them compete regularly on the world stage thus gaining experience and confidence.
Beyond that two additional thoughts: the graphic shows that a number of small countries were able to win not just one but a few medals; a reassessment of the behavior of the media and the public in home nations is in order. On the later point, there is too much focus on medals and not enough on effort, representing ones country, and the joy of athleticism and competition.
There is certainly too much focus on medals in this country. Though it is (apparently) not popular to say, I am sick to death of Michael Phelps and his medal "count." IMHO an athlete ought to retire after winning at one, two or three Olympics. Give others a chance. What is the value, really, in piling up medals? Represent; win; rejoice, but then in the spirit of the games show good sportsmanship (instead of arrogant self-promotion) and encourage those coming up after you to do step up to represent, win, and rejoice in turn. Just because you can keep winning doesn't mean you should.
Beyond that two additional thoughts: the graphic shows that a number of small countries were able to win not just one but a few medals; a reassessment of the behavior of the media and the public in home nations is in order. On the later point, there is too much focus on medals and not enough on effort, representing ones country, and the joy of athleticism and competition.
There is certainly too much focus on medals in this country. Though it is (apparently) not popular to say, I am sick to death of Michael Phelps and his medal "count." IMHO an athlete ought to retire after winning at one, two or three Olympics. Give others a chance. What is the value, really, in piling up medals? Represent; win; rejoice, but then in the spirit of the games show good sportsmanship (instead of arrogant self-promotion) and encourage those coming up after you to do step up to represent, win, and rejoice in turn. Just because you can keep winning doesn't mean you should.
15
Give others a chance?? Why?? As long as the Olympics gives out medals, the winners deserve them and deserve the accolades that go along with winning. If the medals were eliminated, the world wide interest would be non existent.
6
Why exactly should someone who excels in an activity quit to "Give others a chance." Others already have a chance don't they. Should a great musician or anyone else who excels in their field quit because they are too successful?
Anne-Marie,
Basically I agree with you but as per the idea of retiring after x numbers of medals, I feel it is an individual decision. Otherwise, I totally agree that our national press is too medal conscious. We know we will win a lot, why not show off the others who don't have a chance but still make the effort. We are not very good at demonstrating the olympic spirit, starting with you, Bob C.
Basically I agree with you but as per the idea of retiring after x numbers of medals, I feel it is an individual decision. Otherwise, I totally agree that our national press is too medal conscious. We know we will win a lot, why not show off the others who don't have a chance but still make the effort. We are not very good at demonstrating the olympic spirit, starting with you, Bob C.
The difference in medal tally by country clearly reflects the more broader economic and social disparity in our globalised world today. But then again to see a country like Jamaica or Ethiopia win all those medals give us all hope that somehow raw talent and grit can overcome tremendous systemic odds. I am an Indian and so proud of our two girls who are bringing home medals and the other Olympians who tried!
10
Actually if you count the number of people who train in the US, medal count would be even less for many of these countries. It really goes to show how much infrastructure is available here and I can say that as an immigrant!
9
The idea of the Olympics being egalitarian makes no sense. The medals should go to the winners regardless of what country they are from.
11
If we just let it be called a tie when anyone is within 0.1 of a second
or within 1 % of the total points, the Olympics could award - say -
two Gold, three Silver and 4 Bronze medals in an event.
Would that be so bad ?
Otherwise the simple reality of whether you have Year Round Training
Facilities and a large enough population to have superb athletes in each
Sport will, largely, be the deciding factors
or within 1 % of the total points, the Olympics could award - say -
two Gold, three Silver and 4 Bronze medals in an event.
Would that be so bad ?
Otherwise the simple reality of whether you have Year Round Training
Facilities and a large enough population to have superb athletes in each
Sport will, largely, be the deciding factors
1
Why not just turn it into youth sports and give everyone a ribbon for participating. Excellence is so unfair-- why reward it?
2
"For all their egalitarian aspirations..."
What an idiotic opening.
Americans have NO egalitarian aspirations.
The Olympic Games are about, to quote Charlie Sheen, "winning!"
And nothing else.
The media sells the individual stories of "courage" as a way to sell more advertising and more products endorsed by athletes.
The faces of the Olympic Games are Vlad Putin and Ryan Lochte.
What an idiotic opening.
Americans have NO egalitarian aspirations.
The Olympic Games are about, to quote Charlie Sheen, "winning!"
And nothing else.
The media sells the individual stories of "courage" as a way to sell more advertising and more products endorsed by athletes.
The faces of the Olympic Games are Vlad Putin and Ryan Lochte.
2
A lot of Countries are Cricket crazy and could care less about the the sports in Olympics. In an hyper connected World, USA should stop boasting, just makes us look worse than we are. We were so proud of Lance Armstrong until he get caught. How many Athletes from Top Medal winners were enhanced but not caught?
1
Let's not forget that even the representation of sports is lopsided. The US has 30+ medals just in swimming. A sport like tennis has 4 Golds up for grabs. Then there is stuff like trampoline jumping. An almost 60 year old won the Gold for Equestrian where judges also award points on how your horse looks. That's just ridiculous.
10
Yes, an older gentleman from Great Britain won gold in equestrian show jumping. The horse is not award any points for "looking good." The horse and his rider won by jumping a course without knocking a rail down and in the fastest time. The horse could have looked like a giraffe and it wouldn't have mattered.
Send in the clowns. There have to be clowns.
3
The clown ran away. He's called Ryan Lokthe.
It saddens me to see so many American commenters who seem to feel the need to denigrate the achievements of American athletes, apparently because they believe that the success of those athletes is somehow pre-ordained. Every one of those medal-winning athletes has dedicated years of their lives toward training for their sports, in many cases with little or no public support or recognition. Only a few will ever make any real money from their efforts. Most compete for their love of sport and have only family and friends to cheer them on. There is nothing automatic about reaching the pinnacle of your sport regardless of what country you come from. If you are so offended by medal counts, then simply ignore them and seek out the stories of the individual human beings behind each of the medals. I guarantee that these medals did not come easily for any of them.
50
Unlike World Athletics Championships, the Olympic Games reflect economic disparities among nations. Wealthy countries come with a critical mass of contenders, compete in many games, a great number of which are even unknown to or financially unaffordable for people in poor countries. Statisticians should develop an alternative method, like UNDP's Human Development Index, for ranking nations according to criteria such as the number of representatives in the games, country population and GDP, etc. Otherwise, we'll always have G-7 nations minus Canada, plus China and Russia at the top of the table...
3
Affluence of any country doesn't play a major role in winning medals though it helps in providing necessary infrastructure, training and for properly looking after its sports persons. Best examples in the case are Jamaica, Ethiopia and Kenya, which definitely don't fall under rich category.
It's the country's culture that matters most. In the case of India, sports never was and never is a priority. Complicating India's case further is too much of political interference in addition to wholesale corruption. As such India is medal starved nation for sure.
P.V. Sindhu is the only woman to win a silver medal that too this year in Olympics in badminton in the entire India's Olympic history. As such she is undoubtedly a national hero along with Sakshi. The other day Sakshi brought cheers to the nation by winning a bronze medal in wrestling, both being women. These are the only two medals won by India so far in this Olympics.
Sindhu's mother proudly said that Sindhu's coach Pullela Gopichand took away her mobile phone to keep her away from distraction. The fact that Gopichand starts training Sindhu and others at 4 A.M speaks volumes about their dedication. How many sports persons are willing to sacrifice that much and dedicate themselves for years together to achieve their goals, that's the moot point. In the case of Sindhu, her parents were national volleyball players. That helped her immensely in achieving the heights.
It's the country's culture that matters most. In the case of India, sports never was and never is a priority. Complicating India's case further is too much of political interference in addition to wholesale corruption. As such India is medal starved nation for sure.
P.V. Sindhu is the only woman to win a silver medal that too this year in Olympics in badminton in the entire India's Olympic history. As such she is undoubtedly a national hero along with Sakshi. The other day Sakshi brought cheers to the nation by winning a bronze medal in wrestling, both being women. These are the only two medals won by India so far in this Olympics.
Sindhu's mother proudly said that Sindhu's coach Pullela Gopichand took away her mobile phone to keep her away from distraction. The fact that Gopichand starts training Sindhu and others at 4 A.M speaks volumes about their dedication. How many sports persons are willing to sacrifice that much and dedicate themselves for years together to achieve their goals, that's the moot point. In the case of Sindhu, her parents were national volleyball players. That helped her immensely in achieving the heights.
13
Sport is important to Indians, just look at the crowds of people when there is a cricket match!
Very glad both Indian medalists were women, it helps to have strong female role models and inspirations in a nation where there are still issues with gender equality and freedom.
Very glad both Indian medalists were women, it helps to have strong female role models and inspirations in a nation where there are still issues with gender equality and freedom.
6
If India could win medals, they would celebrate it. Enough said.
3
@ TL : Thanks for your reply. Watching sports is entirely different from playing it that too at an extremely competitive level especially in the international tournaments like Olympics and World championships.
Majority of Indian parents simply don't let their children take to sports seriously for the fear of reaching nowhere leavealone having the capacity to foot bills.
Majority of Indian parents simply don't let their children take to sports seriously for the fear of reaching nowhere leavealone having the capacity to foot bills.
2
I get tired of the commentators acting as if the only medal that matters is the gold. They forget how highly trained the disciplined these athletes are, and what it takes to win and silver or bronze. Silver and bronze don't make them losers.
22
I don't get that feeling listening to the them when the US wins bronze like the women's volleyball team did. You hear what you want to hear.
4
You are so right. It's very annoying. When the US wins gold, the bronze winner might not even be acknowledged. From the commentators, you'd never even know the bronze exists. When the US women won the 400 relay, there was not so much as a fleeting shot of the GB team that got the bronze. Those women were less that a second behind the US and were ecstatic at taking home a medal. But they were completely ignored by NBC.
1
Here is what Americans don't get. Here in Canada, we win a very small number of medals compared to the US. But, each one is treasured...gold, silver and bronze and yes, even those who don't medal but give it their all. Most Canadians could probably name everyone of our medal winners. So please, no sympathy needed. We are happy just the way we are. We don't need you to share.
51
Here is what most Canadians don't get: there is enormous goodwill and respect throughout America for Canada (tens of millions of us have visited there or met Canadians visiting or working here) and most Americans would rather see Canadians win medals than any country other the US or the one their ancestors came from (and, in the case of the large number of Americans whose ancestors fled oppression in other countries, root for Canada over their ancestral homes).
In addition, just as Canada is proud of its athletes, win or lose (except perhaps when the hockey team loses), the overwhelming number of Americans are similarly proud of their athletes and know the names of the ones from their areas similar in population to Canada, such as those from the greater New York City area (notwithstanding that the Times does little to publicize Olympians from New Jersey, Connecticut, etc).
Congratulations to all your Olympians!
In addition, just as Canada is proud of its athletes, win or lose (except perhaps when the hockey team loses), the overwhelming number of Americans are similarly proud of their athletes and know the names of the ones from their areas similar in population to Canada, such as those from the greater New York City area (notwithstanding that the Times does little to publicize Olympians from New Jersey, Connecticut, etc).
Congratulations to all your Olympians!
11
Here is what Canadians don't get: They don't know as much about Americans as they think they do.
6
Well, that's like, your opinion man.
You might note how much angst and adulation is generated in India, a nation of 1 billion people that gets negligible number of medals . The reality is that of the 1 billion people maybe .00001% have even the opportunity or desire to get to this level of effort in these categories. I hope India never bids for an olympics as every country which had bid and hosted shows. This is just tremendous price to pay for international comity etc. which can be obtained in a large number of other ways.
So good for the folks in US , Britain and other countries who got a medal, but when it comes to olympics, it is really " to each his own".
So good for the folks in US , Britain and other countries who got a medal, but when it comes to olympics, it is really " to each his own".
6
.00001% of a billion is 100. There are more than 100 top athletes in India.
2
I saw the final badminton match -- the Indian silver medalist, PV Sindhu, was magnificent! I hope she'll vie again at the next Olympics.
1
Well as any youth soccer coach can tell you, there is nothing worse than getting stuck with little Shashir or Sunil in the draft. I sense sour grapes.
The medal count is ridiculous. First and foremost any athletic contest has one winner. Everybody else, regardless of where they finished is one who did not win, ergo they are a loser. Why award and count medals for losers? For all the plaudits for athletes, how hard they work and how courageous they are all they are doing is playing a game and in the end that is of very little importance in the grand cosmos
6
You miss that games played on this scale have tremendous symbolic meaning to millions of people, who are concerned about what's going on here and not in the grand cosmos.
2
So what. This is the Olympics, not kindergarten.
19
120 countries do not win any Olympic Medals, while 5 countries win 40% of the Medals, what it shows? It shows that compering countries by Medal counts is just silly. Many countries just send individuals without any real training & they have no real resources to train them either. Just enjoy games the best way You can.
32
Wrong. There are minimum times and performance criteria to meet in order to participate.
5
There are many sites that tally Olympic medals per capita.
When the relative population of each country is taken into account, the US ranked only 42nd out of 79 participating nations.
When the relative population of each country is taken into account, the US ranked only 42nd out of 79 participating nations.
38
...how many of those countries have government-sponsored programs? The US is one of a few (or the only one?) where the vast majority of its athletes are amateur or scraping by. This makes many of their achievements all the more special.
3
Calculating on a per capita basis is as misleading as anything else. Large countries like the U.S. are limited in the number of athletes they can send to the Olympics by the rules and the structure of the Olympics.
Great Britain with about 66 million people had 372 athletes or one for every 178,000 people; Germany has 81 million people and had 420 athletes or one for every 193,000 people. The U.S. has a population of 316 million and had 552 athletes or one for every 552,000 people; China with 1.3 billion people and 400 athletes present had one competitor for every 3.25 million people. The rules and the structure of the Olympics put constraints on how many athletes even the largest country can send while small populations and financial considerations will constrain many smaller nations. No matter how you look at it, you end up comparing apples to oranges. Just relax and enjoy what all these dedicated and talented people can do.
Great Britain with about 66 million people had 372 athletes or one for every 178,000 people; Germany has 81 million people and had 420 athletes or one for every 193,000 people. The U.S. has a population of 316 million and had 552 athletes or one for every 552,000 people; China with 1.3 billion people and 400 athletes present had one competitor for every 3.25 million people. The rules and the structure of the Olympics put constraints on how many athletes even the largest country can send while small populations and financial considerations will constrain many smaller nations. No matter how you look at it, you end up comparing apples to oranges. Just relax and enjoy what all these dedicated and talented people can do.
8
You argument does not hold
We are talking about athletic excellence - if it is normally distributed and you have a system to choose the best then the larger the population, the greater the likelihood that you can choose a performer who is skewed to the higher end of excellence and will win that gold medal.
Actively selecting from normally distributed large populations will always benefit the larger groups
We are talking about athletic excellence - if it is normally distributed and you have a system to choose the best then the larger the population, the greater the likelihood that you can choose a performer who is skewed to the higher end of excellence and will win that gold medal.
Actively selecting from normally distributed large populations will always benefit the larger groups
To even MAKE an Olympic team is a major accomplishment. The idea that not winning a medal- or in particular a gold medal- is a "failure" is ridiculous and symptomatic of the winner take all mentality of our times, fostered in particular in the US. I am American, by the way. (This same attitude has by the way created the 1% and eviscerated the middle class.) I know from personal experience as a high level college athlete in the 70's that just to be good enough to get on the Olympic team is such a big deal and requires so much dedication, time, money effort that everyone who marched in the Olympics opening parade is a WINNER.
108
Winning is not a recent fad. It's always been better to win wars than to lose them, to win the girl of your dreams rather than to finish in second play, and to win an Academy Word. The newspaper you're reading advertises in 1,000 places how many Pulitzers it has won. It tells you nothing about Pulitzer nominations. Let's get real.
9
The US is barely mentioned in this article; it's mostly about people from other countries. In other words, your critique would be better leveled against Annabel Laure Ali of Cameroon who doesn't appreciate what a feat it is that she even made it to the Olympics.
It leads me to believe you didn't even read it. Frankly, I'm surprised it was selected as a Times Pick.
It leads me to believe you didn't even read it. Frankly, I'm surprised it was selected as a Times Pick.
1
Perhaps it should be considered a point of honor for a nation of to win exactly zero medals. This tally would indicate that its people were not distracted from more productive pursuits by pointless competition in a variety of sports that have little intrinsic value other than as opportunities for recreation.
11
Well, they were distracted enough to bother qualifying and SENDING athletes to the Games. So your argument is pretty silly. I'd say, equivalent to an 11th-place finish. Certainly nowhere near the medal platform.
8
Designate smaller and poorer countries as Division 2, and award separate medals to the top three Division II competitors.
2
Or a third world designation?
Hitler wanted to segregate on racial lines.
First the whole idea of who wins the medal count is contrary to the philosophical purpose of the games --- sport and sportsmanship for its own sake and merit.
That said, let the medal count be weighted by two factors
1. Population of the country
2. Number of athletes fielded.
That said, let the medal count be weighted by two factors
1. Population of the country
2. Number of athletes fielded.
36
One could add a third criterion: GDP per capita, since wealthy countries have more resources to devote to athlete development. (This is somewhat complicated by the phenomenon of athletes coming, for instance, to US universities to train in their sports, but per capita GDP might still be an interesting metric for medal count normalization.)
5
I mentioned this elsewhere, but, if you really want to get egalitarian about it, then there should be some weight given to athletes whose governments sponsored their training and those whose athletes had to figure out funding on their own. (Yes, some athletes—from both the US and other countries—are professionals who make their money through endorsements and competitions, but the vast majority aren't.)
In other words, many Americans who would otherwise train for and participate in the Olympics don't or can't because they don't have the money or it isn't a viable career path. Taking that into consideration, I'm all the more impressed by our athletes' massive success at the games.
In other words, many Americans who would otherwise train for and participate in the Olympics don't or can't because they don't have the money or it isn't a viable career path. Taking that into consideration, I'm all the more impressed by our athletes' massive success at the games.
4
Then why does the Saudi Arabian team stink?
1
The medal counts are silly--how many medals a country wins has little if anything to do with its overall merit as a nation--wasn't that settled by the strong athletic teams fielded by history's worst dictatorships--Hitler's German, the Soviets, East Germany, etc?
The Austrians should be much more concerned with the rise of right-wing extremists in Austria than their medal count, just as the nomination of Donald Trump is much worse news for the US than the poor performances by US sprinters.
As always, the Times postings are a magnet for the "US as the Great Satan" folks, such as those who forget that the Olympics were filled with full time professionals--including basketball players--long before the advent of the Dream Team.
The Austrians should be much more concerned with the rise of right-wing extremists in Austria than their medal count, just as the nomination of Donald Trump is much worse news for the US than the poor performances by US sprinters.
As always, the Times postings are a magnet for the "US as the Great Satan" folks, such as those who forget that the Olympics were filled with full time professionals--including basketball players--long before the advent of the Dream Team.
18
I've been watching (and reading about, before "watching" was an option) the Olympics for many years. I loved it when the Olympians were all amateurs, and the medal count for countries did not exist. But that was then, and this is now. I still love the idea that a talented sportsperson, no matter what gender or nationality, can have a moment in the world's spotlight. And I love the fact that an international sports celebrity can still find excitement and gratification in the Olympic experience, as can an unheralded and unknown athlete from a small country. Let's enjoy the Olympic and not get too grouchy about it.
11
The pretty young woman from Croatia who won the gold in javelin is an excellent example of your point. Diminutive compared to the silver and bronze winners, but man, what an athletic gold-medal-winning throw! Watch it in slow-mo if you get a chance.
2
"The Olympians were all amateurs"
Like the Russian hockey team who played together for 20+ years? I'm sure even in ancient Greece many athletes were taking drachmas under the table.
Like the Russian hockey team who played together for 20+ years? I'm sure even in ancient Greece many athletes were taking drachmas under the table.
I guess when you can afford to send well over 500 athletes to the games while some nations manage only a handful, high medal counts are almost predetermined.
7
Unlike other countries, the US government doesn't pay for any of this. Our athletes need either endorsements or, like the vast majority of them, get by with support from family and friends. Unfortunately, I've noticed this fact has been lost on a lot of commenters to this article, which really diminishes the very real accomplishments of our athletes.
5
With respect, it's a bit easier to "get by" with help from family and friends" if those folks reside in the wealthiest nation on earth. Nothing I wrote diminishes any athlete's accomplishment, I just observed the severe tilt of the playing field.
"The US gets all the medals"
I understand the frustration of many countries, but it should actually be "Western Europe gets all the medals". Britain and Germany alone currently have more gold medals than the US, with less than half the population. This is a fact rarely noted bu US commentators when they marvel at the US medal count.
I understand the frustration of many countries, but it should actually be "Western Europe gets all the medals". Britain and Germany alone currently have more gold medals than the US, with less than half the population. This is a fact rarely noted bu US commentators when they marvel at the US medal count.
63
I'm basically repeating my response to every comment here, but: If you're going to note that, then you should also note the US is one of the only countries that doesn't pay a dime to any of its athletes. Some of our athletes—like some in other countries—are high profile enough or compete in a sport with enough well-funded competitions that they make a career out of their training through endorsements and prize money. But the majority of our athletes can't, and have to figure out how they'll fund their training on their own. This is a fact rarely noted by US commentators when they marvel at the US medal count... something that makes the US medal count all the more impressive.
6
OTOH, Germany and Great Britain with a combined population of 147 M have 792 athletes between them in Rio. The U.S. with a population of 316 M has 552.
Great Britain had 13 gymnasts, Germany 17, the U.S. 18.
The way the Olympics Committee and the various sports federations structure the competitions has an effect on how many countries can compete in any given sport and then on how many athletes from a particular country can compete in various events.
The women's gymnastics all around is an example. The top three qualifiers were all Americans, but each country can send only two competitors to the finals, thus the third American was shut out of being able to add to the U.S. medal count. If the top three qualifying had been two from Germany and one from GB; all three would have been in the finals, with the potential to produce 50% more medals for those two countries than the U.S. competitors could have garnered under any circumstances.
Team sports are another example. In volleyball, competition is limited to twelve teams that qualify based on such things as being the host country, having won the world championship the preceding year, and various other mechanisms determined by the sports' federation. In 2012, for example, Great Britain, Germany, and the U.S. all had teams that qualified. As it turned out, none of them won any medals, but the potential was there for Great Britain and Germany to win two medals, while the U.S. could not have had more than one.
Great Britain had 13 gymnasts, Germany 17, the U.S. 18.
The way the Olympics Committee and the various sports federations structure the competitions has an effect on how many countries can compete in any given sport and then on how many athletes from a particular country can compete in various events.
The women's gymnastics all around is an example. The top three qualifiers were all Americans, but each country can send only two competitors to the finals, thus the third American was shut out of being able to add to the U.S. medal count. If the top three qualifying had been two from Germany and one from GB; all three would have been in the finals, with the potential to produce 50% more medals for those two countries than the U.S. competitors could have garnered under any circumstances.
Team sports are another example. In volleyball, competition is limited to twelve teams that qualify based on such things as being the host country, having won the world championship the preceding year, and various other mechanisms determined by the sports' federation. In 2012, for example, Great Britain, Germany, and the U.S. all had teams that qualified. As it turned out, none of them won any medals, but the potential was there for Great Britain and Germany to win two medals, while the U.S. could not have had more than one.
4
Exactly. When you factor in relative populations--medals per capita--a very different 'list' emerges...congratulations Grenada, Bahamas, Finland and Hungary!
http://www.topendsports.com/events/summer/medal-tally/all-time-compariso...
http://www.topendsports.com/events/summer/medal-tally/all-time-compariso...
Congratulations Brazil!
What an amazing victory!
We Americans salute you as you take your place in history.
What an amazing victory!
We Americans salute you as you take your place in history.
1
The olympics used to be for amateurs until politics got in to it. Thousand of people doing different sports all over the world that surprisingly would be chosen to represent their countries. People from all walk of life. Until the USSR won more medals than the USA and, so the Dream Team arrived and changed the Olympics for ever for the detriment of the real sportspeople- the amateurs.
And, anyway, those stars have their own world tournaments, why should they take the space of people who deserve to be known.
And, anyway, those stars have their own world tournaments, why should they take the space of people who deserve to be known.
4
You grossly misstate the history of professionals in the Olympics.The Dream was simply a recognition that all the basketball players EXCEPT the Americans were professionals, playing full time in leagues outside the US for substantial sums of money.
Similarly, it was well-known that all the skiers and track stars, and all the athletes from the Communist countries worked full time as athletes and were well paid by Soviet, Chinese, East German, etc standards.
The real outrage from that era was the systemic doping of the east German and other athletes.
Similarly, it was well-known that all the skiers and track stars, and all the athletes from the Communist countries worked full time as athletes and were well paid by Soviet, Chinese, East German, etc standards.
The real outrage from that era was the systemic doping of the east German and other athletes.
27
Yeah, the Dream Team was America's way to say to the rest of the world, "We're putting to rest once and for all the fiction that anyone other than America is best in basketball. When we send you our best, you will see that you are all playing for 2nd place."
Because we'd always sent amateurs, the world was beguiled into thinking they had caught up to America at basketball. The Dream Team thoroughly debunked that fantasy.
If I'm not mistaken, Chuck Daly never called a single time-out during their entire Olympic run in 1992.
Because we'd always sent amateurs, the world was beguiled into thinking they had caught up to America at basketball. The Dream Team thoroughly debunked that fantasy.
If I'm not mistaken, Chuck Daly never called a single time-out during their entire Olympic run in 1992.
3
People mention that in many countries athletes are supported by their governments and are, therefore, professionals, vs. our amateurs. One forgets that we have another "professional" system for our athletes. It is the university system which pays for their training and living. I bet that there are few places in the world that have the sports facilities that mega universities like Ohio, Michigan, USC, Texas, etc. have. The worst thing about the Olympics is the nationalism and television's selective, that is, partisan, showing of events. I know that I have not watched every minute, but I have not seen one non-US national anthem shown.
1
"Through Saturday afternoon, the five most victorious countries had claimed nearly 40 percent of all the medals, and the top 10 owned about 55 percent."
That's FAR more egalitarian than the wealth distribution in the world. With 84% of the world's millionaires living in the top ten countries. http://inequality.org/global-inequality/
(I also agree that wealth inequality contributes to medal counts.)
That's FAR more egalitarian than the wealth distribution in the world. With 84% of the world's millionaires living in the top ten countries. http://inequality.org/global-inequality/
(I also agree that wealth inequality contributes to medal counts.)
8
They gotta be in it to win it.
At least when one of these medal outlier countries wins a metal it is more meaningful and valuable (as Austria shows) than it is to a country like ours where it is routine and even expected.
Perhaps they should change the medal count chart to a "medals per capita" country list. As David Brooks points out in his Opinion piece "Is Our Country as Good as Our Athletes Are?" there are many smaller countries with significant medal counts.
Would NY City get as many medals as Denmark does which has a smaller population than NYC?
Unfortunately many countries' leaders view the Olympics through a political lens instead of an inspirational athletic and global human event that displays the strength, dedication, sacrifice and "sportsmanship" that world leaders could emulate - unlike the sad view the Austrian sports minister has, or the Russian doping leaders have done.
Being called an "Olympian" is golden in my book - regardless of the country of origin.
At least when one of these medal outlier countries wins a metal it is more meaningful and valuable (as Austria shows) than it is to a country like ours where it is routine and even expected.
Perhaps they should change the medal count chart to a "medals per capita" country list. As David Brooks points out in his Opinion piece "Is Our Country as Good as Our Athletes Are?" there are many smaller countries with significant medal counts.
Would NY City get as many medals as Denmark does which has a smaller population than NYC?
Unfortunately many countries' leaders view the Olympics through a political lens instead of an inspirational athletic and global human event that displays the strength, dedication, sacrifice and "sportsmanship" that world leaders could emulate - unlike the sad view the Austrian sports minister has, or the Russian doping leaders have done.
Being called an "Olympian" is golden in my book - regardless of the country of origin.
10
For all the whiners going on about egalitarianism etc, get a life. Sports is about competition and no matter what, there will be winners and there will be losers. As far as wealthy countries alone being able to win medals. I give you Jamaica.
49
Yes, why question anything.
I have some empathy for the countries that at least try by sending athletes to the Olympics but yet have a difficult time competing with the athletes who likely had access to better training. Should the better trained and prepared athletes try less hard to "allow" more equal sharing in the medal haul? Crickets. Didn't think so.
5
The rich nation theory doesn't explain Jamaican track. They have to be the most medals per capita. Congrats to them all!
5
Well this is where athletic culture plays a role. Plus track is one of the few sports that anyone can participate in because it is relatively cheap.
Just getting on an Olympic team is medal worthy in my book. For me it's not about nations or medal count it's about seeing the athletes in action wherever they are from. I just wish the coverage was more balanced and fair.
35
The Olympics is political thus the medal count by country. They are also commercial which is why NBC caters to its advertisers concentrating on American athletes. I thoroughly enjoyed live tennis on Bravo. But then tennis is an international sport with both men and women competing equally.
8
The only Olympic disciplin where there is zero distinction between gender are the equestrian events.
2
Why do most countries even bother to participate when they know beforehand that all the glory will go to a few wealthy countries? Don't seem like fun or Olympic spirit anymore.
16
I disagree. Some of my favorite moments were upsets by unexpected contenders, like seeing a tae kwon do fighter from Cote d' Ivoire beat a contender from Great Britain in the last second of the match because the other fighter thought he had already won. I'll admit I was shocked by Alison Felix's end-of-race loss to Shanae Miller of Bahamas, who fell over the finish line seven hundredths of a second faster than Felix. The sudden reversals are what make sports so fascinating, and the favorites don't always win.
5
The people of Jamaica, Kenya, and a host of former USSR countries would like to have a word with you.
1
What a question! The athletes participate because they have a chance to do their thing in the biggest event in the world. So they don't get a medal or global "glory" as you put it. Who cares? They trained and competed and did their thing. That's what matters most, isn't it?
1
I think the accomplishments of our athletes are wonderful, but listening to the U.S. Olympics media people egotistically boast about the U.S. dominating all the medals, shake my head, and change the channel. Trinidad and Tobago's only hope to win a medal is today when Keshorn Walcott, the 2012 Olympic gold medalist in the javelin, competes. Good luck to Keshorn!
26
Some of the NBC replay stream coverage was without the usual commentator blah. You heard the crowd, perhaps the athlete (I watched olympic lifting), and with my radio playing in the background, it was pretty nice. NBC might want to do the math and see how much they could save by just getting rid of the blather, and streaming the action only.
2
As with all things, athletics favors the economically developed nations. Richer nations have more opportunities, resources for coaching, training therefore they will always have an advantage
29
You do know that a number of these athletes competing for the US.'s competitors live and train here, using many of those top coaches and facilities?
16
To wit: Monica Puig's gold medal for Puerto Rico (PR's first Olympic gold medal EVER). She's lived and trained in Miami for a number of years.
Also, a bunch of European golfers now live in America and play the American PGA Tour, but compete for their homelands.
Also, a bunch of European golfers now live in America and play the American PGA Tour, but compete for their homelands.
4
This is very true. Many of the top athletes from all countries in sports like swimming and track & field train and compete in the U.S. through the NCAA system, and thus have access to same level of coaching and facilities as U.S. athletes. Many other professionals live, train, and compete in the U.S. or Europe for some or all of the year. The top athletes in the high-profile sports have much more of a level playing field than some people care to admit.
7
I DESPISE THE MEDAL COUNT in the US PRESS. Hundreds of US athletes versus 20 at most in some countries. NBC only covered American athletes in their interviews. DISGUSTING. Where is the Olympic spirit. KILLED by the USOC.
104
I don't despise the medal count, but it seems like a relic from the cold war era.
7
This past week I was at a beach rental house which included cable TV (I don't have it at home) and so was able to watch much more live coverage of non-US teams playing various sports. It was great to see some other countries' athletes compete. The prime time coverage on NBC is so USA-focused, you rarely get to see the other competitors.
6
Same in UK, & Canada.
2
But athletes from the US have a more difficult job to even make the US Olympic team due to the greater number of Americans participating in many of these sports. So maybe Olympic athletes from Cameroon or elsewhere are fortunate to be able to represent their country and be part of the Olympic experience, even if they don't win many medals. There are many American athletes left out of medals also and left out of the Olympics.
69
That you could read this story and come up with a scenario that makes Americans out to be the victims is astounding. The "recommends" are equally sad.
4
AC,
I don't think you even read the article. You also are clearly unaware that the US government does not sponsor its athletes unlike the government of pretty much every other developed country (in addition to places like Russia, China, etc.). Some of our athletes our professionals, but the same is true of other countries, as well (see: Usain Bolt).
Additionally, many foreign athletes live an train in the US using American infrastructure, and native-born American citizens represent the countries of birth of parents or grandparents. (I believe there are nine such athletes this year.)
rgx is exactly right. I'm sorry you're so hostile to facts.
I don't think you even read the article. You also are clearly unaware that the US government does not sponsor its athletes unlike the government of pretty much every other developed country (in addition to places like Russia, China, etc.). Some of our athletes our professionals, but the same is true of other countries, as well (see: Usain Bolt).
Additionally, many foreign athletes live an train in the US using American infrastructure, and native-born American citizens represent the countries of birth of parents or grandparents. (I believe there are nine such athletes this year.)
rgx is exactly right. I'm sorry you're so hostile to facts.
1
I am sorry, but since when sports is an egalitarian affair?
37
Nothing is equal, except maybe that all but one country's athletes are competing away from home. I like college football, but when my team plays a cupcake I'm not so excited. I want to see competition.
1
Thank you! I see these comments bemoaning competition and I'm like, "Are you the same people who criticize Millennials as special snowflakes overly coddled by helicopter parents?" (The answer is probably yes, but that's not surprised: the self-righteous are the most prone to hypocrisy.)
3