Most Successful Countries of All-Time: Per Capita (2016 UDATE)

Generally the most successful countries in terms of Olympic medals won are also some of the biggest countries in terms of population. This may seem unfair when comparing the success of countries, as the bigger countries have a larger population pool from which to develop athletes. Using per capita data to rank success of nations at the Olympic Games is an alternative to the popular way of ranking based on just total gold medals won.

The following analysis is based on the total medals won by a country throughout modern Olympic history (we have also calculated the per capita medal results for the 2008 Olympic Games, though with the small sample size a single medal to a small nation can make a big difference to the ranking).

Below are tables of the top countries based on the total all-time medals won during the Summer Olympics (including 2016 data), ranked relative to the nation's population (figures mostly from 2015).

See the complete medal list and population data from which this analysis is derived, and also a discussion of different ranking systems. We have also calculated lists based on medals per GDP.

The Finns are Best when you consider Total Medals

Finland is the most successful currently competing country at the Olympic Games based on their population size and the number of Olympic medals won (irrespective of whether you use the total golds or total medals metric). Finland have won 101 gold medals in 25 appearances at the Summer Olympics, with a current population of 5.5 million people. Denmark, with a similar population and from the same region, have won only 45 gold medals. Many of Finland's medals were gained in early last century, with only a few medals won in recent Olympiads.

A country which has leaped into the top 10 is the small nation of Grenada which won its first gold medal in 2012, when runner Kirani James won the Men's 400 meters (and a silver to add to that in 2016), coming from a population of just over 100,000. Another standout on the top 10 list is another Caribbean country The Bahamas, with their 6 gold medals from sailing and athletics, and with a current population of less than 400,000 people.

When using this method to rank countries for the 2008 Olympic Games results, smaller countries tended to dominate the list, as it only required a medal or two for them to rank highly. Using the all-time list as done here provides a larger data set and gives a more accurate and representative result.

The two tables below show the ranking based on (1) gold medals won, and (2) total medals won.

Table: Top ranked teams based on GOLD MEDALS per million population

Jamaica is the country jumping into the top 10 after a successful 2016 Games.

rank Country Gold est. population total gold

/million pop 1 Finland 101 5,493,577 18.39 2 Hungary 175 9,823,000 17.82 3 Bahamas 6 378,040 15.87 4 Sweden 147 9,906,331 14.84 5 Norway 56 5,236,826 10.69 6 New Zealand 46 4,710,740 9.76 7 Grenada 1 103,328 9.68 8 Jamaica 23 2,723,246 8.45 9 Denmark 45 5,724,456 7.86 10 Bulgaria 51 7,153,784 7.13

Table: Top ranked teams based on TOTAL MEDALS per million population

rank Country Total Medals est. population total medals

/million pop 1 Finland 303 5,493,577 55.16 2 Hungary 491 9,823,000 49.98 3 Sweden 494 9,906,331 49.87 4 Bahamas 14 378,040 37.03 5 Denmark 194 5,724,456 33.89 6 Bulgaria 214 7,153,784 29.91 7 Norway 152 5,236,826 29.03 8 Jamaica 78 2,723,246 28.64 9 Estonia 34 1,315,944 25.84 10 New Zealand 117 4,710,740 24.84

The Caribbean is the place to be

As pointed out in several intelligent comments about the above results, I have come to realize that the figures above may not best represent per capita medals. The data does not account for the number of appearances of each country. For example, it is not fair to compare the total medal count of the UK who have appeared at all 28 Olympic Games with China, who have appeared only 10 times. A better analysis would be to base the analysis on the average number of medals won per appearance, not on the total medal count.

After crunching the numbers after the 2016 Olympics, the results are quite different to those above. We have listed only currently competing countries. If included, the East Germans would be the top ranked per capita medal winning country based on average medal counts, having produced a large number of gold medals relative to its population in its five appearances at the Olympics. There is no doubt that the East Germans had some talented athletes and a very well organized sports development program, though it is now known that systematic doping took place which would account an unfair boost in their medal count. Also considering it is no longer in existence as such, I am happy to ignore the East German results, which leave Grenada as the most successful country per capita.

The small nation of Grenada won its first medal, a gold, at the 2012 Olympics, in its eighth appearance at the Games. Finland was also put down a place by another Caribbean country The Bahamas, who have done well to win 6 golds in their 16 appearances.

Table: Top ranked teams based on AVERAGE GOLD MEDALS per million population

If included, the East German team would top this list, with 153 gold medals in five Olympic Games and an estimated population of 16.1 million, average gold medals per million population would be 1.90.

rank Country No. Olympics Gold est. population Ave No. Golds Ave Gold

/million pop 1 Grenada 9 1 103,328 0.1 1.08 2 Bahamas 16 6 378,040 0.4 0.99 3 Finland 25 101 5,493,577 4.0 0.74 4 Hungary 26 175 9,823,000 6.7 0.69 5 Estonia 12 9 1,315,944 0.8 0.57 6 Sweden 27 147 9,906,331 5.4 0.55 7 Kosovo 1 1 1,836,978 1.0 0.54 8 Jamaica 17 23 2,723,246 1.4 0.50 9 Norway 25 56 5,236,826 2.2 0.43 10 New Zealand 23 46 4,710,740 2.0 0.42

Table: Top ranked teams based on AVERAGE TOTAL MEDALS per million population

If included, the East German team would top this list, with 409 total medals in 5 Olympic Games and an estimated population of 16.1 million, average medals per million population would be 5.08. Bahamas has jumped up to top this list after the 2016 Olympics, mainly due to poor returns from Finland and Estonia. Grenada jumped into the top 10 too with a second medal to runner Kirani James.

rank Country No. Olymp. total medals est. population Ave Total Medals Ave Medals

/million pop 1 Bahamas 16 14 378,040 0.9 2.31 2 Finland 25 303 5,493,577 12.1 2.21 3 Estonia 12 34 1,315,944 2.8 2.15 4 Grenada 9 2 103,328 0.2 2.15 5 Hungary 26 491 9,823,000 18.9 1.92 6 Sweden 27 494 9,906,331 18.3 1.85 7 Jamaica 17 78 2,723,246 4.6 1.68 8 Slovenia 7 23 2,063,371 3.3 1.59 9 Bulgaria 20 214 7,153,784 10.7 1.50 10 Belarus 6 85 9,498,700 14.2 1.49

Table Notes:

The data includes all medals won at the summer Olympic Games (including 2016). The original medal list source: Wikipedia.

The population data was sourced from the Wikipedia page: List_of_countries_by_population, which contained the most recently known (as of Aug 2016) population data.

Further Analysis?

Of course there are also some other issues with the current analysis. In most cases the most current population data is used for analysis here, even though many of the medals were won during earlier Olympics were the population would have been lower. The assumption is that the relative populations between countries is similar over time, but this is probably not always the case. This analysis also assumes an even distribution of medals over time, which is also not correct. Finland may historically be the best performing country per capita, but they may not currently be as successful as they have been in the past.

Share:

Facebook Twitter

Related Pages

Old Comments

Commenting is closed on this page, though you can read some previous comments below which may answer some of your questions.

Taylorkavanagh • 6 years ago

I can't think of any real occasions where kiwi's have cheated. Britten motor bike technology was miles ahead of the others, but being clever isn't cheating. Using aerodynamic pods in the 1984 Olympics in Kayaking was deemed illegal, but the kiwis won 3 or 4 kayak golds without them anyway. Not sure what we cheated in to get almost as many golds as Aus at the London Olympics. Don't think we cheated when we won the Softball world champs back from Aus last year. Rowing and track cycling also going very well, without drugs (unlike some Aussy league teams).

Couldn't help but bite back!!

I can't think of any real occasions where kiwi's have cheated. Britten motor bike technology was miles ahead of the others, but being clever isn't cheating. Using aerodynamic pods in the 1984 Olympics in Kayaking was deemed illegal, but the kiwis won 3 or 4 kayak golds without them anyway. Not sure what we cheated in to get almost as many golds as Aus at the London Olympics. Don't think we cheated when we won the Softball world champs back from Aus last year. Rowing and track cycling also going very well, without drugs (unlike some Aussy league teams). Couldn't help but bite back!! Mick Scott Taylorkavanagh • 5 years ago

Is NZ still a country or finally & officially a territory of Australia ?

Big mistake on Australia's part.



Is NZ still a country or finally & officially a territory of Australia ? Big mistake on Australia's part. kew Mick Scott • 3 years ago

Australia still is a crown colony of Great Britain and the queen, not even an independent country right?



Australia still is a crown colony of Great Britain and the queen, not even an independent country right? Mick Scott kew • 3 years ago

and still we cant keep the Kiwi`s and everybody else out.



and still we cant keep the Kiwi`s and everybody else out. Steve Ward Mick Scott • 4 years ago

The last thing the people of Straya would want is for NZ to be part of your struggling country. Let's face it.. we would end up taking it over via "hard work" running it properly and kick all the whinning/moaning aussies into the desert and then build a big fence. It's also the last thing Kiwis want because your our big sisters and we respect you from time to time.



The last thing the people of Straya would want is for NZ to be part of your struggling country. Let's face it.. we would end up taking it over via "hard work" running it properly and kick all the whinning/moaning aussies into the desert and then build a big fence. It's also the last thing Kiwis want because your our big sisters and we respect you from time to time. Unknown Mick Scott • 4 years ago

Shut up I'm from New Zealand, where are u from so I can say you ment to be another country. Also you must be the thickest person to live, look at a map, and do some study on the world.



Shut up I'm from New Zealand, where are u from so I can say you ment to be another country. Also you must be the thickest person to live, look at a map, and do some study on the world. thehawkreturns Mick Scott • 4 years ago

Australia is a country?



Australia is a country? Balazs Sandor • 5 years ago

Hungary also have much less population before 70's, and especially before 2nd WW. (around 7,5-8 million). But if you see the exact numbers, you can find that Hungary continuously was on the top, which means always was in the best 10-12 after Olympics, as now: if you see the final medal table after London2012, you clearly find that who is the first really small country in the top of the table: the 9th Hungary (Between 60 millions Italy(8.) and 23 millions Australia (10.). Another is that Hungary wins major of its golds in water games (swimming, canoe, water polo etc.) even they don't have see, it's a continental country. Third is that a comment said earlier that perhaps the Scandinavians are the best sportsmen because these countries over the top. If you see postilion of Hungary, they are alone: no any neighbor country have same performance. It's funny joke, that "have here or there something in the water", here really have but I don't think, that water can win any gold medal: the people doing this, continuously from 1896 to 2012. Nice tradition!



Hungary also have much less population before 70's, and especially before 2nd WW. (around 7,5-8 million). But if you see the exact numbers, you can find that Hungary continuously was on the top, which means always was in the best 10-12 after Olympics, as now: if you see the final medal table after London2012, you clearly find that who is the first really small country in the top of the table: the 9th Hungary (Between 60 millions Italy(8.) and 23 millions Australia (10.). Another is that Hungary wins major of its golds in water games (swimming, canoe, water polo etc.) even they don't have see, it's a continental country. Third is that a comment said earlier that perhaps the Scandinavians are the best sportsmen because these countries over the top. If you see postilion of Hungary, they are alone: no any neighbor country have same performance. It's funny joke, that "have here or there something in the water", here really have but I don't think, that water can win any gold medal: the people doing this, continuously from 1896 to 2012. Nice tradition! u2u2u2 • 4 years ago

The reason large countries do worse in Medals Per Capita is because, after a certain point, say a population of about 40-50 million, having more people doesn't really create better athletes. You just get repetition of ranges of athletic ability, and the law of diminishing returns kicks in. A country as large as China could be smaller or larger by several hundred million people, and the number of medals won would hardly be affected.

The reason large countries do worse in Medals Per Capita is because, after a certain point, say a population of about 40-50 million, having more people doesn't really create better athletes. You just get repetition of ranges of athletic ability, and the law of diminishing returns kicks in. A country as large as China could be smaller or larger by several hundred million people, and the number of medals won would hardly be affected. Steve • 5 years ago

It would also be worth considering the number of people in a country physically able to compete. Many poorer African countries have high populations, but equally high incidents of poverty, hunger and disease. It is hardly fair to compare these countries with countries like Finland and Hungary which have a comparatively able population. The lack of funding in many third world countries (owing to more pressing problems like widespread starvation) should also be considered.



It would also be worth considering the number of people in a country physically able to compete. Many poorer African countries have high populations, but equally high incidents of poverty, hunger and disease. It is hardly fair to compare these countries with countries like Finland and Hungary which have a comparatively able population. The lack of funding in many third world countries (owing to more pressing problems like widespread starvation) should also be considered. dhorvath57 • 6 years ago

The Soumi & Magyar are @ the top NO MATTER how you slice it - Hmmmm!



The Soumi & Magyar are @ the top NO MATTER how you slice it - Hmmmm! tibi dhorvath57 • 6 years ago

Suomi, Magyars (Hungarians) and Estonians rule the top >> Finno-ugristic phenomenon?

Suomi, Magyars (Hungarians) and Estonians rule the top >> Finno-ugristic phenomenon? Gene Doc tibi • 5 years ago

What is interesting is that the countries with genetic populations that have been relatively isolated in Europe for extended periods of time are leading the list by huge statistical margins.

What is interesting is that the countries with genetic populations that have been relatively isolated in Europe for extended periods of time are leading the list by huge statistical margins. Their are only two genetic populations that have been relative immobile geographically and genetically isolated since before the 10th century: the Scandinavian Population(now Sweden, Finland, Norway) and the Magyar populations (original Kingdom of Hungary that occupied the Carpathian Basin of Europe now: Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine,Bosnia/Herzegovina).

Both genetic population survived genetically isolated for ~1000+ years (pre-9th century to early 1900s) and where best well know as raiders/mercenaries for over 1,000 years.

They also distinguish themselves from other "warrior populations" in that they largely operated during the Iron Age in Europe, and lived/died/reproduced based on strength, stamina, and hand eye coordination needed to handle the weapons/horses used in Iron Age Warfare.

Most other pure genetically isolated "warrior populations" were using Stone Age weapons that require more brut strength but less coordination to use effectively.



ricardo Gene Doc • 4 years ago

Your genetic evaluation is completely wrong and not to mention completely ignorant since the most isolated European nations in the past were Sardinia and Basque.

my suggestion pick up a book and start reading

Your genetic evaluation is completely wrong and not to mention completely ignorant since the most isolated European nations in the past were Sardinia and Basque. my suggestion pick up a book and start reading Mick Taylor (from the Top End) • 7 years ago

But NZ cheats, so their records don't count. They've been doing it ever since they used wide combs to beat the Australians at shearing and let's not forget the 2011 Rugby World Cup where France were totally ripped off. Then again they got their come uppance in the last America's Cup. It took an Aussie (how bad was it that he had to sail for the US?) to pull back defeat from the jaws of victory. No wonder they breed so many sheep because they all bleat! Ha Ha Ha Balanced people though. Chips on both shoulders.

But NZ cheats, so their records don't count. They've been doing it ever since they used wide combs to beat the Australians at shearing and let's not forget the 2011 Rugby World Cup where France were totally ripped off. Then again they got their come uppance in the last America's Cup. It took an Aussie (how bad was it that he had to sail for the US?) to pull back defeat from the jaws of victory. No wonder they breed so many sheep because they all bleat! Ha Ha Ha Balanced people though. Chips on both shoulders. Elijah Macs Mick Taylor (from the Top End) • 6 years ago

juding from your sour comments, aussie have the biggest chip on thier shoulders



juding from your sour comments, aussie have the biggest chip on thier shoulders Alan Dempsey Mick Taylor (from the Top End) • 4 years ago

Aussies are bad loosers, and atrocious winners. The latter of which to be fair, they lack experience. So they've got an excuse. And they're good at excuses, I'll give them that. I guess they've had a lot of practice.



Aussies are bad loosers, and atrocious winners. The latter of which to be fair, they lack experience. So they've got an excuse. And they're good at excuses, I'll give them that. I guess they've had a lot of practice. William Rangi Mick Taylor (from the Top End) • 5 years ago

Kind of answer you'd expect from an Aussie. Carry on with the way your going and you'll get every thing you deserve you sad sad excuse for a alien he..he..he.. lol

Kind of answer you'd expect from an Aussie. Carry on with the way your going and you'll get every thing you deserve you sad sad excuse for a alien he..he..he.. lol SuperbFlab • 4 years ago

I'm late to this but I think only considering population is misleading. Successful countries with huge populations will never look as good as these countries mostly because there's a finite amount of medals to be won. For example, the Olympics has 302 total medals or thereabouts I believe. Even a country like the USA wins most if not all the medals, it wouldn't matter because of its 320 million population. I prefer to use size of contingent and total medals available. I think this is more reflective. You'll never convince me the countries in this (a country with one medal but a small population doesn't prove much) list are *more athletic* than the United States. Or the UK, Germany, Russia, France, Italy or Australia (all with large populations (or medium in the case of Aus.) who get hurt by this method in my view). Greetings from Canada.



I'm late to this but I think only considering population is misleading. Successful countries with huge populations will never look as good as these countries mostly because there's a finite amount of medals to be won. For example, the Olympics has 302 total medals or thereabouts I believe. Even a country like the USA wins most if not all the medals, it wouldn't matter because of its 320 million population. I prefer to use size of contingent and total medals available. I think this is more reflective. You'll never convince me the countries in this (a country with one medal but a small population doesn't prove much) list are *more athletic* than the United States. Or the UK, Germany, Russia, France, Italy or Australia (all with large populations (or medium in the case of Aus.) who get hurt by this method in my view). Greetings from Canada. James Dominguez II SuperbFlab • 3 years ago

"You'll never convince me..." It's really discouraging to know that anyone could honestly utter those words. It's an unacceptable perspective, no matter what the subject matter.



"You'll never convince me..." It's really discouraging to know that anyone could honestly utter those words. It's an unacceptable perspective, no matter what the subject matter. SuperbFlab James Dominguez II • 3 years ago

Oh, spare your concern troll. It's a light subject matter and a figure of speech. Of course, I'm open. Now go ahead and offer one. I'm fully aware I could be wrong. Lord me, chill.



Oh, spare your concern troll. It's a light subject matter and a figure of speech. Of course, I'm open. Now go ahead and offer one. I'm fully aware I could be wrong. Lord me, chill. Khaos Cualdawath SuperbFlab • 4 years ago

You kindly forget the level of health and obesity that renders X amounts of the populace unable to pursue sports carrier and advance competivity to even higher levels, and also seem to forget that modern sports need exhausting amounts of resources to just keep them afloat, not even talking about healthy growth and education of new generations. So in the end if you are actually wanting to look at a whole picture, the smaller the country by capita, the larger the feat while producing medals in such an event...

You kindly forget the level of health and obesity that renders X amounts of the populace unable to pursue sports carrier and advance competivity to even higher levels, and also seem to forget that modern sports need exhausting amounts of resources to just keep them afloat, not even talking about healthy growth and education of new generations. So in the end if you are actually wanting to look at a whole picture, the smaller the country by capita, the larger the feat while producing medals in such an event... fred Khaos Cualdawath • 4 years ago

There is a problem here with just counting the medals. A country like the US having two or more competitors in the same race is a bit outlandish. There must be a system established to identify countries that have beat the odds to win gold. If you want to identify winners by countries. During the 2010 Winter Olympics, Canada won the most gold. However, all US internet locations boasted they came first for the most medals. ???? Doesn't so well for the US, or China or any other country. And it really doesn't reflect the overall health of the citizen of that country.



There is a problem here with just counting the medals. A country like the US having two or more competitors in the same race is a bit outlandish. There must be a system established to identify countries that have beat the odds to win gold. If you want to identify winners by countries. During the 2010 Winter Olympics, Canada won the most gold. However, all US internet locations boasted they came first for the most medals. ???? Doesn't so well for the US, or China or any other country. And it really doesn't reflect the overall health of the citizen of that country. SuperbFlab Khaos Cualdawath • 4 years ago

Now you're just expanding the criteria possibly needlessly. Obesity rates are near impossible to come to any uniform standard; plus it disregards of that subset would any of those people be athletes. It's basically a moot or inconsequential point since it's all probably all discounted anyway. I do not understand your final point as it correlates to your first assertion. I see little or no connection if I read it correctly. What would be helpful is, and this may strengthen your point and perhaps impact my original argument, is what do countries spend on amateur programs (I've struggled to find reliable any statistics on this). In fact, this may be a more useful criteria than a vague term like 'health' and obesity. Cheers!



Now you're just expanding the criteria possibly needlessly. Obesity rates are near impossible to come to any uniform standard; plus it disregards of that subset would any of those people be athletes. It's basically a moot or inconsequential point since it's all probably all discounted anyway. I do not understand your final point as it correlates to your first assertion. I see little or no connection if I read it correctly. What would be helpful is, and this may strengthen your point and perhaps impact my original argument, is what do countries spend on amateur programs (I've struggled to find reliable any statistics on this). In fact, this may be a more useful criteria than a vague term like 'health' and obesity. Cheers! Robert Ikanov • 9 months ago

Finland in summer games?? Lol, you seem confused a little bit with winter games, I guess



Finland in summer games?? Lol, you seem confused a little bit with winter games, I guess Rob Admin Robert Ikanov • 9 months ago

You would be surprised, Finland have been very successful in the past SUmmer Olympics, particularly in track and field events. Check out Paavo Nurmi who won 9 gold medals himself.



You would be surprised, Finland have been very successful in the past SUmmer Olympics, particularly in track and field events. Check out Paavo Nurmi who won 9 gold medals himself. UnfortunateTruth • 6 years ago

You should take out the the data for the Winter Olympics. The Greeks did not have ski races. These games should not count since most all winter sport athletes are not elite level athletes as measured by any empirical levels of strength (Olympic lifts, vert,40m time, etc.) or vascular fitness (VO2 Max). Look at American Sean White, circus acts are not sport. Then you have a very clear winner. Hungary.



You should take out the the data for the Winter Olympics. The Greeks did not have ski races. These games should not count since most all winter sport athletes are not elite level athletes as measured by any empirical levels of strength (Olympic lifts, vert,40m time, etc.) or vascular fitness (VO2 Max). Look at American Sean White, circus acts are not sport. Then you have a very clear winner. Hungary. Bob Newb UnfortunateTruth • 4 years ago

rhythmic gymnastics is a joke, as is anything that requires 'artistic' or 'creativity'.

Purge olympics of anything that cannot be timed or counted (ie anything that cant be faked with biased judges).

rhythmic gymnastics is a joke, as is anything that requires 'artistic' or 'creativity'. Purge olympics of anything that cannot be timed or counted (ie anything that cant be faked with biased judges). UnfortunateTruth • 6 years ago

These are fake counties that where created by socialists just the last 100 years. These were all once part of the Kingdom of Hungary 1,100 years prior:

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Romania

Serbia

Slovakia

Slovenia

Ukraine

Add these medals to Hungary's total, since all these people are of Hungarian decent, subtract out the Winter Olympics, which is just the old Nordic Games, not the true Olympics and it is a very clear picture.



These are fake counties that where created by socialists just the last 100 years. These were all once part of the Kingdom of Hungary 1,100 years prior: Bosnia and Herzegovina Romania Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Ukraine Add these medals to Hungary's total, since all these people are of Hungarian decent, subtract out the Winter Olympics, which is just the old Nordic Games, not the true Olympics and it is a very clear picture. superswagg UnfortunateTruth • 5 years ago

the human species originates from central africa, so all the medals from hungary should be added to kenya

the human species originates from central africa, so all the medals from hungary should be added to kenya ogi UnfortunateTruth • 6 years ago

You sir, dont have a clue, what you are talking about.

You sir, dont have a clue, what you are talking about. Jon Sipal UnfortunateTruth • 4 years ago

I am probably too dense to grasp the answer to my question. I am an American that was born in the Czech Rep. My question is how come Slovakia, which of course was part of the now defunct Czechoslovakia, have a very similar language to the Czech's and yet are from the Hungarian decent?



I am probably too dense to grasp the answer to my question. I am an American that was born in the Czech Rep. My question is how come Slovakia, which of course was part of the now defunct Czechoslovakia, have a very similar language to the Czech's and yet are from the Hungarian decent? sm8 UnfortunateTruth • 4 years ago

Only Slovakia and the one you forgot Croatia was part of the Hungarian Kingdom in their entirety. The rest -besides Romania- took small chunks from Hungary in 1919, but saying they were once fully part of Hungarian crown is far fetched.



Only Slovakia and the one you forgot Croatia was part of the Hungarian Kingdom in their entirety. The rest -besides Romania- took small chunks from Hungary in 1919, but saying they were once fully part of Hungarian crown is far fetched. Bob Newb sm8 • 4 years ago

with two thirds of hungary carved off that is a lot of small chunks.... lol



with two thirds of hungary carved off that is a lot of small chunks.... lol sm8 Bob Newb • 4 years ago

As you can see above I mentioned Slovakia and Croatia in their entirety and beside Romania which took a large chunk, Transylvania. The rest were taken by neighboring countries Austria, the Ukraine, and Serbia, hardly one third. But yes ALL together was two thirds.



As you can see above I mentioned Slovakia and Croatia in their entirety and beside Romania which took a large chunk, Transylvania. The rest were taken by neighboring countries Austria, the Ukraine, and Serbia, hardly one third. But yes ALL together was two thirds. Natalie • 4 years ago

From 1902 to today Sweden's population increased by about 4 million and Finland's population increased by just under 3 million. During that same time Australia's population increased by 18 million, so if you use 2012's population to calculate past Olympic medal wins then the data is skewed. A better way might be to calculate to the gold or medals per capita for each country at each Olympic game and then average these by the number of Olympics each has participated in.



From 1902 to today Sweden's population increased by about 4 million and Finland's population increased by just under 3 million. During that same time Australia's population increased by 18 million, so if you use 2012's population to calculate past Olympic medal wins then the data is skewed. A better way might be to calculate to the gold or medals per capita for each country at each Olympic game and then average these by the number of Olympics each has participated in. Rob Admin Natalie • 4 years ago

I agree, it would be better though much more difficult and time consuming to find the population data for each year of the Olympics.



I agree, it would be better though much more difficult and time consuming to find the population data for each year of the Olympics. Peter • 4 years ago

Obviously your data is erroneous because you don't take into account winter Olympics in which countries with colder climates (snow/ice) will do better than, say, Grenada! Also, how much money does a country spent on training the athletes ... coaches and equipment are expensive too!



Obviously your data is erroneous because you don't take into account winter Olympics in which countries with colder climates (snow/ice) will do better than, say, Grenada! Also, how much money does a country spent on training the athletes ... coaches and equipment are expensive too! Steve • 4 years ago

How about another table showing the number of medals per number of athletes?



How about another table showing the number of medals per number of athletes? Sean • 4 years ago

As mentioned, there are a lot more textures to this statistic. There were early Olympics where a "combined" team were entered. If my memory serves me correctly the first two were just open to whoever could get there. Which is one of the reasons Scandinavia is over represented. Again, I think the early Olympics in Sweden and Antwerp were over represented by Scandinavian countries. Similarly, at the St Louis Olympics half the events had only US entrants etc. You could go on. You should only really use recent Olympics and exclude the show pony events like basketball, tennis etc. which shouldn't be there anyway and are only there to sell tickets.



As mentioned, there are a lot more textures to this statistic. There were early Olympics where a "combined" team were entered. If my memory serves me correctly the first two were just open to whoever could get there. Which is one of the reasons Scandinavia is over represented. Again, I think the early Olympics in Sweden and Antwerp were over represented by Scandinavian countries. Similarly, at the St Louis Olympics half the events had only US entrants etc. You could go on. You should only really use recent Olympics and exclude the show pony events like basketball, tennis etc. which shouldn't be there anyway and are only there to sell tickets. Emily • 4 years ago

Surely, Australia would have to be no. 1, because they are the smartest, best looking awesomest people in the world. Incidentally also rather up themselves. Watching the commentary is embarrassing. In the words of one channel 9 commentator, when a swimmer got silver by one 100th of a second, ol' mate actually made a comment asking if it's even fair that they have to split the gold and silver, when the other guy pointed out that they wouldn't be complaining if the situation was reversed as in one swimmer's win in the 2008 Olympics. Australia is a beautiful place, with good people in general, but terrible sports people who cannot accept a defeat, and consistently count chickens before they hatch, only to whinge, make excuses, or abuse athletes who 'failed' by getting a silver. Pleeeeaaase!



Surely, Australia would have to be no. 1, because they are the smartest, best looking awesomest people in the world. Incidentally also rather up themselves. Watching the commentary is embarrassing. In the words of one channel 9 commentator, when a swimmer got silver by one 100th of a second, ol' mate actually made a comment asking if it's even fair that they have to split the gold and silver, when the other guy pointed out that they wouldn't be complaining if the situation was reversed as in one swimmer's win in the 2008 Olympics. Australia is a beautiful place, with good people in general, but terrible sports people who cannot accept a defeat, and consistently count chickens before they hatch, only to whinge, make excuses, or abuse athletes who 'failed' by getting a silver. Pleeeeaaase! Peter Lohan Emily • 4 months ago

"but terrible sports people who cannot accept a defeat". You've just described 99% of successful sports people.



"but terrible sports people who cannot accept a defeat". You've just described 99% of successful sports people. istvan_from_hungary • 4 years ago

I think, it's impossible to work out an absolutely objective method to compare the performance of countries on the Olympic Games. What is sure (not forgetting extremely high political efforts and doping): (1) Olympic successes express national traditions, and (2) mostly they have positive impact on the fame of a country. Of course, as a Hungarian, I'm happy and proud that a country with one of the lowest GDP in Europe has always been and, in spite of growing competition, is still among the best performing countries. And a technical remark: countries with too low (say, under 1 million), or too high population (say, exceeding 50 million) cannot be valued properly on a linear scale. One gold medal for Liechtenstein cannot be compensated by any big country. Perhaps a logarithmic function of medals would be less distorting. Anyway, be proud of your country's successes, if any, and don't be too despaired for failures. All nations on the world are equally talented in sports. Successes mostly depend on the sport policy of your politicians and a little bit on good luck.



I think, it's impossible to work out an absolutely objective method to compare the performance of countries on the Olympic Games. What is sure (not forgetting extremely high political efforts and doping): (1) Olympic successes express national traditions, and (2) mostly they have positive impact on the fame of a country. Of course, as a Hungarian, I'm happy and proud that a country with one of the lowest GDP in Europe has always been and, in spite of growing competition, is still among the best performing countries. And a technical remark: countries with too low (say, under 1 million), or too high population (say, exceeding 50 million) cannot be valued properly on a linear scale. One gold medal for Liechtenstein cannot be compensated by any big country. Perhaps a logarithmic function of medals would be less distorting. Anyway, be proud of your country's successes, if any, and don't be too despaired for failures. All nations on the world are equally talented in sports. Successes mostly depend on the sport policy of your politicians and a little bit on good luck. drd • 4 years ago

Some countries have a consistently high medal count per capita (Slovenia) but have only been in existence for a short period of time so the analysis skews against them. Consider adjusting for the length of time a country has been competing as an independent entity. The other alternative is to count medals from that region. The Slovene athletes were very successful when they were part of Yugoslavia - count the medals of the Yugoslav athletes that were from Slovenia in the historical slovene count.



Some countries have a consistently high medal count per capita (Slovenia) but have only been in existence for a short period of time so the analysis skews against them. Consider adjusting for the length of time a country has been competing as an independent entity. The other alternative is to count medals from that region. The Slovene athletes were very successful when they were part of Yugoslavia - count the medals of the Yugoslav athletes that were from Slovenia in the historical slovene count. Hindrek Möls • 4 years ago

Statistics gives hope to humanity.

In a healthy body is a healthy mind.



Statistics gives hope to humanity. In a healthy body is a healthy mind. Andrew • 5 years ago

I think GDP is a very good way to get an fair indication. I also like the relative team size suggestion, but perhaps even more relevant would be a combination of both - % of national GDP spent on sending the team to the Games. This would be more meaningful than a simple "$ spent per medal" calculation (though this might also be interesting) as it might indicate the relative importance of success to a particular country , while at the same time allowing a country like the US with a massive GDP to climb back up the rankings a bit if their team selection is at least somewhere in the same ball-park in terms of "spare cash thrown at the event". Though I realise the intrinsic difficulties in locating such figures.



I think GDP is a very good way to get an fair indication. I also like the relative team size suggestion, but perhaps even more relevant would be a combination of both - % of national GDP spent on sending the team to the Games. This would be more meaningful than a simple "$ spent per medal" calculation (though this might also be interesting) as it might indicate the relative importance of success to a particular country , while at the same time allowing a country like the US with a massive GDP to climb back up the rankings a bit if their team selection is at least somewhere in the same ball-park in terms of "spare cash thrown at the event". Though I realise the intrinsic difficulties in locating such figures. John Wright • 5 years ago

Ranking medals according to GDP can also be misleading as many of the athletes from poorer countries train in the US college system and thus receive all the assistance those programs provide.



Ranking medals according to GDP can also be misleading as many of the athletes from poorer countries train in the US college system and thus receive all the assistance those programs provide. Steve • 5 years ago

I have done a table showing the number of athletes per medal. but ONLY for these 2012 games in London. I don't have all the data necessary to do an all time table like that. It's interesting, but still not the complete answer. Botswana for example, is at the top of the list, but they only had 4 athletes there in London, and because they won one medal (Silver), they have 4 athletes sent per medal ... the lowest on the list. My table looks at the total medal count though, not just the Gold medals. My point is that there is no one way of definitively measuring the success of countries at Olympic Games. I wonder however, if maybe a formula could be found, that incorporates Poulation, number of athletes and GDP all in one. Perhaps athletes as a percentage of population? Minute percentages they would be though, of course. And somehow including GDP in the mix also. Any budding mathemetician or statistician out there that wants to try that?



I have done a table showing the number of athletes per medal. but ONLY for these 2012 games in London. I don't have all the data necessary to do an all time table like that. It's interesting, but still not the complete answer. Botswana for example, is at the top of the list, but they only had 4 athletes there in London, and because they won one medal (Silver), they have 4 athletes sent per medal ... the lowest on the list. My table looks at the total medal count though, not just the Gold medals. My point is that there is no one way of definitively measuring the success of countries at Olympic Games. I wonder however, if maybe a formula could be found, that incorporates Poulation, number of athletes and GDP all in one. Perhaps athletes as a percentage of population? Minute percentages they would be though, of course. And somehow including GDP in the mix also. Any budding mathemetician or statistician out there that wants to try that? UnfortunateTruth • 6 years ago

...Also if you consider a good 1/3 of Olympic athletes winning medals are of Hungarian decent in the first place, but would not know it because they are either raised in America or have been brainwashed by their socialist communist masters to think they represent some fake nation that was created in the last 100 years and ends with an "ia". Look at a map of Central Europe drawn before the 1900s and you will clearly see what group of people has a genetic predisposition to competing in athletics.



...Also if you consider a good 1/3 of Olympic athletes winning medals are of Hungarian decent in the first place, but would not know it because they are either raised in America or have been brainwashed by their socialist communist masters to think they represent some fake nation that was created in the last 100 years and ends with an "ia". Look at a map of Central Europe drawn before the 1900s and you will clearly see what group of people has a genetic predisposition to competing in athletics. Andrew • 5 years ago

Hitler was right about Aryans being the master race. The main Aryans come from Scandinavia and Finland, Sweden have the most total medals per capita.



Hitler was right about Aryans being the master race. The main Aryans come from Scandinavia and Finland, Sweden have the most total medals per capita. ricardo Andrew • 4 years ago

Dude you're a ignorant or just clueless Aryans come from South Asian today's modern day Iran!

And Scandinavians are historically known as being germanic people and not Aryans!

Dude you're a ignorant or just clueless Aryans come from South Asian today's modern day Iran! And Scandinavians are historically known as being germanic people and not Aryans! Norbert • 5 years ago

Finland? Hungary? Estonia? Adding Estonia's golds won during the Soviet times, the 3 most successful countries are these. I tell you a secret guys, these countries are Europe's largest non-Indo-European minority, the Uralic family. Pretty lucky guys, we are. Don't misunderstand, even though it looks like, it's not about genetics, because the mixing with other tribes in the past millenniums left almost invisible similarity in the DNA. It's just an interesting fact.



Finland? Hungary? Estonia? Adding Estonia's golds won during the Soviet times, the 3 most successful countries are these. I tell you a secret guys, these countries are Europe's largest non-Indo-European minority, the Uralic family. Pretty lucky guys, we are. Don't misunderstand, even though it looks like, it's not about genetics, because the mixing with other tribes in the past millenniums left almost invisible similarity in the DNA. It's just an interesting fact. Wade Laurence Sullivan • 6 years ago

Kiwi's have always been harder than Aussies..

You call your selves diggers..

We are warriors

Kiwi's have always been harder than Aussies.. You call your selves diggers.. We are warriors smileyfacechief Wade Laurence Sullivan • 6 years ago

"Warriors" lol coming from a country that's not even considered on Australian levels when it comes to sports. Btw don't even try and mention the "all blacks" because rugby in Australia isn't really a popular sport. Australia is better than new Zealand in almost every area expect for rugby and shotput.



"Warriors" lol coming from a country that's not even considered on Australian levels when it comes to sports. Btw don't even try and mention the "all blacks" because rugby in Australia isn't really a popular sport. Australia is better than new Zealand in almost every area expect for rugby and shotput. the kiwi smileyfacechief • 5 years ago

pfft bro we beat yous in rugby and league oh and basketball oh yea in cricket and softball. heck if we wanted to enter the ausie rules comp we would take that out as well. not to mention your ufc stars are mostly kiwis



pfft bro we beat yous in rugby and league oh and basketball oh yea in cricket and softball. heck if we wanted to enter the ausie rules comp we would take that out as well. not to mention your ufc stars are mostly kiwis Gene Doc the kiwi • 5 years ago

Australians are mostly descendants of English convicts that where relocated due to prison over crowding between 1788 and 1868.

Australians are mostly descendants of English convicts that where relocated due to prison over crowding between 1788 and 1868. Though Australia is a large diverse country now, there is not a significant genetic difference between the majority of the Australians and natural citizens of the UK and their Olympic performance overtime is similar....Nothing special



ross manley Gene Doc • 4 years ago

no true ... most Australian's ...pioneers, farmers, inventors, creators

were free settlers. Celts, Britons, Anglo Saxons .. They sailed for months to their destinations. Starting from nothing, then building one of the most advanced White Christian Nations Cultures on earth in less than 100 years. Suggestion ... do some research before spouting the tired convict line.



no true ... most Australian's ...pioneers, farmers, inventors, creators were free settlers. Celts, Britons, Anglo Saxons .. They sailed for months to their destinations. Starting from nothing, then building one of the most advanced White Christian Nations Cultures on earth in less than 100 years. Suggestion ... do some research before spouting the tired convict line. DS1294 the kiwi • 5 years ago

Australia have beaten NZ in Cricket (We have the Trophy to prove it), Basketball, Field Hockey, Soccer, Futsal and Rugby League (Again WC win). The logic that NZ is better through Domestic Leagues is flawed as there are Aussies and Internationals playing in those teams.



Australia have beaten NZ in Cricket (We have the Trophy to prove it), Basketball, Field Hockey, Soccer, Futsal and Rugby League (Again WC win). The logic that NZ is better through Domestic Leagues is flawed as there are Aussies and Internationals playing in those teams. DS1294 the kiwi • 5 years ago

Actually the Australian National Team have beaten NZ in Basketball and Cricket (WC Final). The logic that NZ is better simply due to being top in the Domestic leagues in Soccer and Basketball are flawed as there are already Aussies and other nationalities playing in those teams so they don't count.



Actually the Australian National Team have beaten NZ in Basketball and Cricket (WC Final). The logic that NZ is better simply due to being top in the Domestic leagues in Soccer and Basketball are flawed as there are already Aussies and other nationalities playing in those teams so they don't count. Matt Kav DS1294 • 5 years ago

New Zealand are outright best in the world in Rugby Union, Rugby Sevens, Rugby League (at the moment), Softball, Surf life Saving, Rowing, several sailing world champs, 2 kayaking world champs, top equestrian riders. Per capita we are best in the world in Hockey (mens and womens), Cricket, track cycling, world no1 women golfer, Scott Dixon - multiple indy car winner, current Le Mann 24 hr champs, World shotput champ Valerie adams.....bleat, bleat, bleat....and hard to beat.



New Zealand are outright best in the world in Rugby Union, Rugby Sevens, Rugby League (at the moment), Softball, Surf life Saving, Rowing, several sailing world champs, 2 kayaking world champs, top equestrian riders. Per capita we are best in the world in Hockey (mens and womens), Cricket, track cycling, world no1 women golfer, Scott Dixon - multiple indy car winner, current Le Mann 24 hr champs, World shotput champ Valerie adams.....bleat, bleat, bleat....and hard to beat. DJS94 Matt Kav • 4 years ago

Best per capita in Field Hockey? lol NZ haven't even won anything in Field Hockey. Australia's Men have won the Field Hockey WC 3 times, Cricket WC 5 times, Rugby League WC 10 times, Union 2 times and 28 Davis Cup Titles. Australia's Women have won the Cricket WC 6 times, Field Hockey WC 2 times, 1 Basketball WC and 11 Netball WC. So now tell me, apart from Rugby is there any sport NZ really dominates Australia in?

Older Comments